On 11.04.24 14:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 11.04.24 14:26, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:17:36PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Hi David,
...
static int mfill_atomic_pte_zeropage(pmd_t *dst_pmd,
struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
unsigned long dst_addr)
@@ -324,6 +355,9 @@ static int mfill_atomic_pte_zeropage(pmd_t *dst_pmd,
spinlock_t *ptl;
int ret;
+ if (mm_forbids_zeropage(dst_vma->mm))
I assume, you were going to pass dst_vma->vm_mm here?
This patch does not compile otherwise.
Ah, I compiled it only on x86, where the parameter is ignored ... and
for testing the code path I forced mm_forbids_zeropage to be 1 on x86.
Now I get it, I compiled it all on s390x, but not the individual
patches, so patch #2 hid the issue in patch #1. Sneaky. :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
