On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:07:51 +0200 Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +/* > + * Advertise that we call the Speculative Page Fault handler. > + */ > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_SMP) > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_CALL_SPF > +#endif Here's where I mess up your life ;) It would be more idiomatic to define this in arch/XXX/Kconfig: config SPF def_bool y if SMP then use CONFIG_SPF everywhere. Also, it would be better if CONFIG_SPF were defined at the start of the patch series rather than the end, so that as the patches add new code, that code is actually compilable. For bisection purposes. I can understand if this is too much work and effort - we can live with things the way they are now. This patchset is a ton of new code in very sensitive areas and seems to have received little review and test. I can do a merge-and-see-what-happens but it would be quite a risk to send all this upstream based only on my sketchy review and linux-next runtime testing. Can we bribe someone? -- 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>
