On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:12:50PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Kirill A. Shutemov,
>
> The patch 78d5e6079a91: "mm: postpone page table allocation until we
> have page to map" from Jun 9, 2016, leads to the following static
> checker warning:
>
> mm/memory.c:3175 do_fault_around()
> warn: if statement not indented
>
> mm/memory.c
> 3167 /* check if the page fault is solved */
> 3168 fe->pte -= (fe->address >> PAGE_SHIFT) - (address >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> 3169 if (!pte_none(*fe->pte)) {
> 3170 /*
> 3171 * Faultaround produce old pte, but the pte we've
> 3172 * handler fault for should be young.
> 3173 */
> 3174 pte_t entry = pte_mkyoung(*fe->pte);
> 3175 if (ptep_set_access_flags(fe->vma, fe->address, fe->pte,
> 3176 entry, 0))
>
> What's going on here? Should the next line be indented?
Yes, it should. The checker is right, I screwed it on conflict solving.
Thanks for spotting this.
Fixup is below.
> 3177 update_mmu_cache(fe->vma, fe->address, fe->pte);
> 3178 ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> 3179 }
> 3180 pte_unmap_unlock(fe->pte, fe->ptl);
> 3181 out:
> 3182 fe->address = address;
> 3183 fe->pte = NULL;
> 3184 return ret;
> 3185 }
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 8e80e8ffc6ee..02cd5d9f0571 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3174,7 +3174,7 @@ static int do_fault_around(struct fault_env *fe, pgoff_t start_pgoff)
pte_t entry = pte_mkyoung(*fe->pte);
if (ptep_set_access_flags(fe->vma, fe->address, fe->pte,
entry, 0))
- update_mmu_cache(fe->vma, fe->address, fe->pte);
+ update_mmu_cache(fe->vma, fe->address, fe->pte);
ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
}
pte_unmap_unlock(fe->pte, fe->ptl);
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>