On 07/13/2016 08:49 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > My results are below. There are a couple of cases in arch/mn10300/mm that > were not in the original patch. Yeah, so mn10300 is obviously unaffected by the erratum in question, and I didn't look for non-x86 architectures for this patch. But, this code definitely _looks_ like it should be using pte_none(), especially since mn10300 defines it the same way as x86 (well, as x86 _did_ before this series). #define pte_none(x) (!pte_val(x)) > diff -u -p a/arch/mn10300/mm/cache-inv-icache.c b/arch/mn10300/mm/cache-inv-icache.c > --- a/arch/mn10300/mm/cache-inv-icache.c > +++ b/arch/mn10300/mm/cache-inv-icache.c > @@ -45,11 +45,11 @@ static void flush_icache_page_range(unsi > return; > > pud = pud_offset(pgd, start); > - if (!pud || !pud_val(*pud)) > + if (!pud || pud_none(*pud)) > return; > > pmd = pmd_offset(pud, start); > - if (!pmd || !pmd_val(*pmd)) > + if (!pmd || pmd_none(*pmd)) > return; -- 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>