On 07/22/2019 09:11 PM, Steven Price wrote: > Steven Price (21): > arc: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > arm: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > arm64: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > mips: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > powerpc: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > riscv: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > s390: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > sparc: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions > x86: mm: Add p?d_leaf() definitions The set of architectures here is neither complete (e.g ia64, parisc missing) nor does it only include architectures which had previously enabled PTDUMP like arm, arm64, powerpc, s390 and x86. Is there any reason for this set of archs to be on the list and not the others which are currently falling back on generic p?d_leaf() defined later in the series ? Are the missing archs do not have huge page support in the MMU ? If there is a direct dependency for these symbols with CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE then it must be checked before falling back on the generic ones. Now that pmd_leaf() and pud_leaf() are getting used in walk_page_range() these functions need to be defined on all arch irrespective if they use PTDUMP or not or otherwise just define it for archs which need them now for sure i.e x86 and arm64 (which are moving to new generic PTDUMP framework). Other archs can implement these later.
