On 01/18/2018 03:27 PM, Jan H. Schönherr wrote: > It would still skip the unlock, in case pmdp is !=NULL (and locked) after follow_pte_pmd(). > So it wouldn't address, what I intended to address with the patch. Small correction: we'd take the "else" branch, which would do some stuff it's not supposed to do when follow_pte_pmd() returns with pmdp!=NULL. And we'd actually do a unlock, but thinking it's a PTE, not a PMD. So, defensive-wise, may point still stands, that we're not correctly handling an unexpectedly returned PMD entry. Regards Jan
