On 5/9/2022 12:10 PM, nh26223@xxxxxx write:
----------------8<---------------
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index ca8e65c..ce39699 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
@@ -158,6 +158,30 @@ static inline int num_contig_ptes(unsigned long
size,
size_t *pgsize) return contig_ptes;
}
+pte_t huge_ptep_get_access_flags(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long sz)
The function name looks to me that it returns access flags of PTE.
Yes, not a good name. That's why this is a RFC patch set to get more
suggestion :)
Maybe huge_ptep_get_with_access_flags()? or do you have some better idea?
I don't have either. "Naming is hard". :)
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
index a57d667..bb77fb0 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
@@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep)
}
#endif
+#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET_ACCESS_FLAGS
+static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get_access_flags(pte_t *ptep, unsigned
long
sz) +{
+ return ptep_get(ptep);
Should be:
return huge_ptep_get(ptep) ?
I don't think so. If no ARCH-specific definition, the
huge_ptep_get_access_flags() implementation should be same as
huge_ptep_get(). Thanks for your comments.
If no __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET, huge_ptep_get() is same as
ptep_get().
Or it's not possible no __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET_ACCESS_FLAGS
but with __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET?
Yes, I am wrong, shoule be huge_ptep_get(). Thanks for pointing out
issues :)
PS: I think I will follow Muchun's suggestion in next version, so no
need to add a new interface.
