On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:31:51AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/15/2018 10:21 AM, Ram Pai wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:55:31AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>>> + if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey)) > >>> Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true > >>> ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed. > >> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated. It just > >> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created. I think that will > >> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as > >> possible. > > I think, the logic that makes pkey-0 special must to go > > in arch-neutral code. How about checking for pkey-0 in sys_pkey_free() > > itself? > > This is for protection against shooting yourself in the foot? Yes, that > can go in sys_pkey_free(). > > Does this need manpage and/or selftests updates? Yes. it needs selftest, manpage and documentation updates too. Unfortunately I am not getting enough reviewed-by for my selftests and documentation changes. :-( Need help! -- Ram Pai
