Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? It's an ack - I should've been more explicit. Acked-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@xxxxxxx> Thanks, Punit [...] -- 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>
