[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ff65fb4e-4a7c-443b-b855-e5c3cd22889f@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 12:29:33 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@...cinc.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, ardb@...nel.org, ryan.roberts@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, joey.gouly@....com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: mm: implement vmemmap_check_pmd for arm64
A very small nit regarding the subject line. The callback
vmemmap_check_pmd() is already present on arm64 platform
which is rather incomplete. Something like this might be
better.
arm64/mm: Test for pmd_sect() in vmemmap_check_pmd()
On 12/30/24 13:18, Zhenhua Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/12/27 10:57, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> However it does not really check the entry to be a section mapping which it should.
>> Returning pmd_sect(READ_ONCE(*pmdp)) is the right thing, which should have been the
>> case from the beginning when vmemmap_check_pmd() was added. I guess because arm64's
>> original vmemmap_populate() checked only for vmemmap_verify() as well. So probably
>> this does not need a "Fixes: " tag.
>
> Hi Anshuman,
>
> I agree, will remove "Fixes: " tag in next patchset
Could you please send a V3 of this patch separately instead
and not part of this series as they are not really related.
But after implementing the following changes
1) Use READ_ONCE() as indicated earlier
2) Drop the "Fixes: " tag
3) Update the commit message explaining why pmd_sect() is
required here and how the originally commit missed that
4) Update the subject line
Powered by blists - more mailing lists