. snip..
> static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
> unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> - pte_fn_t fn, void *data)
> + pte_batch_fn_t fn, void *data)
> {
> pte_t *pte;
> int err;
> - pgtable_t token;
> spinlock_t *uninitialized_var(ptl);
>
> pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
> @@ -1940,25 +1939,17 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
> BUG_ON(pmd_huge(*pmd));
>
> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> -
> - token = pmd_pgtable(*pmd);
> -
> - do {
> - err = fn(pte++, addr, data);
> - if (err)
> - break;
> - } while (addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
> -
> + err = fn(pte, (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE, addr, data);
> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>
> if (mm != &init_mm)
> - pte_unmap_unlock(pte-1, ptl);
> + pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
That looks like a bug fix as well? Did this hit us before the change or was
it masked by the fact that the code never go to here?
> return err;
> }
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>