> #endif /* _LINUX_KMAP_PFN_H */
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 8a4f24d7fdb0..07152a54b841 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -939,6 +939,7 @@ typedef struct {
> * PFN_SG_CHAIN - pfn is a pointer to the next scatterlist entry
> * PFN_SG_LAST - pfn references a page and is the last scatterlist entry
> * PFN_DEV - pfn is not covered by system memmap
> + * PFN_MAP - pfn is covered by a device specific memmap
> */
> enum {
> PFN_MASK = (1UL << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1,
> @@ -949,6 +950,7 @@ enum {
> #else
> PFN_DEV = 0,
> #endif
> + PFN_MAP = (1UL << 3),
> };
>
> static inline __pfn_t pfn_to_pfn_t(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long flags)
> @@ -965,7 +967,7 @@ static inline __pfn_t phys_to_pfn_t(dma_addr_t addr, unsigned long flags)
>
> static inline bool __pfn_t_has_page(__pfn_t pfn)
> {
> - return (pfn.val & PFN_DEV) == 0;
> + return (pfn.val & PFN_DEV) == 0 || (pfn.val & PFN_MAP) == PFN_MAP;
Shouldn't we simply not set the PFN_DEV flag instead of needing another
one to cancel it out?
I also wonder if it might be better to not require the __pfn_t and
SG rework patches before this series.
--
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>