On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:38:33 +0200 Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:47:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > 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); > > Documentation/cachetlb.txt will need an update as well. Currently it says: > > 5) void update_mmu_cache(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep) Yes please. > I would prefer we introduce something like update_mmu_cache_huge_page(vma, > address, pmd) and leave the classic update_mmu_cache() unchanged. Why? -- 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>