On 03/21/2020 01:20 AM, John Hubbard wrote: > On 3/20/20 6:22 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > ... >>>> +Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> +Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Or we can just drop the pud_mknotpresent(). There's no users AFAICS and >>> only x86 provides it. > > +1 > >> >> Yes that will be an option but IMHO fixing pud_present() here might be >> a better choice because, >> >> (1) pud_mknotpresent() with fixed pud_present() might be required later > > > It might. Or it might not. Let's wait until it's actually used, and see. > Dead code is an avoidable expense (adds size, space on the screen, email > traffic and other wasted time), so let's avoid it here. Sure, will resend with pud_mknotpresent() dropped. > > >> (2) PMD & PUD will be exact same (THP is supported on either level) >> >> Nonetheless, I am happy to go either way. >> > > > thanks,
