On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 11-09-12 17:47:15, Will Deacon wrote: > > From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > > > The update_mmu_cache() takes a pointer (to pte_t by default) as the last > > argument but the huge_memory.c passes a pmd_t value. The patch changes > > the argument to the pmd_t * pointer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/huge_memory.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c > > index 57c4b93..4aa6d02 100644 > > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c > > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c > > @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ int do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > entry = pmd_mkyoung(orig_pmd); > > entry = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(entry), vma); > > if (pmdp_set_access_flags(vma, haddr, pmd, entry, 1)) > > - update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry); > > + update_mmu_cache(vma, address, pmd); > > I am not sure but shouldn't we use the new entry rather than the given > pmd? The pmd pointer is the new pmd and 'entry' is the new value derived from orig_pmd. update_mmu_cache() expects a pointer to pte_t or pmd_t rather than it's value. -- Catalin -- 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>