On 11/20/2015 05:07 AM, yalin wang wrote:
The code generated is identical either way, but I agree your way looks better.+ +void set_huge_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, + pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) +{ + size_t pgsize; + int i; + int ncontig = find_num_contig(mm, addr, ptep, pte, &pgsize); + unsigned long pfn; + pgprot_t hugeprot; + + if (ncontig == 1) { + set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, pte); + return; + } + + pfn = pte_pfn(pte); + hugeprot = __pgprot(pte_val(pfn_pte(pfn, 0) ^ pte_val(pte)));is this should be pte_val(pfn_pte(pfn, 0)) ^ pte_val(pte) ?
-Dave -- 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>