Hi Dave, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:06:01PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 7/17/19 12:14 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > - if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) > > + if (pmd_present(*pmd) ^ pmd_present(*pmd_k)) > > set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k); > > Wouldn't: > > if (pmd_present(*pmd) != pmd_present(*pmd_k)) > set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k); > > be a bit more intuitive? Yes, right. That is much better, I changed it in the patch. > But, either way, these look fine. For the series: > > Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Joerg