On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 06:38:24PM GMT, LEROY Christophe wrote:
> Le 18/06/2024 à 16:40, Maxwell Bland a écrit :
> > @@ -64,10 +65,11 @@ static int ptdump_p4d_entry(p4d_t *p4d, unsigned long addr,
> > if (st->effective_prot)
> > st->effective_prot(st, 1, p4d_val(val));
> >
> > - if (p4d_leaf(val)) {
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_NON_LEAF_PTDUMP) || pgd_leaf(val))
>
> Don't you mean p4d_leaf() here instead of pgd_leaf() ?
> Don't you mean pud_leaf() here instead of pgd_leaf() ?
> Don't you mean pmd_leaf() here instead of pgd_leaf() ?
Oh my, this is embarrassing. )-:
Hence the review process---thank you for catching these, will fix in v5.
Maxwell
