On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hmm. Is there some reason we never need to worry about it for the > >> "pmd_numa()" case just above? > >> > >> A comment about this all might be a really good idea. > >> > > Yes Sir, added. > > Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but > do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not. It does. The check should be moved up. > Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The > *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd > like to understand it. We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too. Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was correct: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/402 -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>