On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 01/23/2016 07:05 AM, mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This makes set_memory_xx() consistent with x86. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Penttilä mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > --- > > arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c > > index 3571c73..52220dd 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c > > @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, int > > numpages, > > WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > > } > > > > + if (!numpages) > > + return 0; > > + > > if (start < MODULES_VADDR || start >= MODULES_END) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > I think this is going to conflict with Ard's patch > lkml.kernel.org/g/<1453125665-26627-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Can you rebase on top of that? > Also, I think patch 2 and 3 can be folded together since the change is the same to both functions. I think the changelog should be expanded to explain that charge_memory_common() with numpages == 0 should be a no-op. When both of those are done, and it's rebased as requested, feel free to add my: Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>