On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:45 +0000 Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So I don't think that the above test result means that errors are properly > > handled, and the proposed patch should help for arm64. > > Although, the deviation of pud_huge() avoids a kernel crash the code > would be easier to maintain and reason about if arm64 helpers are > consistent with expectations by core code. > > I'll look to update the arm64 helpers once this patch gets merged. But > it would be helpful if there was a clear expression of semantics for > pud_huge() for various cases. Is there any version that can be used as > reference? Is that an ack or tested-by? Mike keeps plaintively asking the powerpc developers to take a look, but they remain steadfastly in hiding. Folks, this patch fixes a BUG and is marked for -stable. Can we please prioritize it? -- 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>
