On Thu, 12 May 2022 14:28:18 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > - return get_clear_contig(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, pgsize, ncontig);
> > > + orig_pte = get_clear_contig(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, pgsize, ncontig);
> > > + flush_tlb_range(vma, addr, addr + pgsize * ncontig);
> > > + return orig_pte;
> > > }
> >
> > Yes, after checking this fb396bb459c1 ("arm64/hugetlb: Drop TLB flush from
> > get_clear_flush()"), I also realized it will miss TLB flush.
> >
> > So I am not sure I need send a incremental patch to fix this issue? Or
> > resend my patch set [1] with rebasing on the arm64 changes?
> >
> > Catalin and Andrew, how do you think? Thanks.
>
> Andrew folding the diff in is fine by me. I presume the mm patches are
> applied on top of the rest of linux-next (and the arm64 commits).
No, the mm patches are based on
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm master branch,
which is -rc4 or thereabouts.
So one of us needs to ensure that Linus gets that patch after the
second of us merges up. I can't test it so I nominate you ;) Against
linux-next or the mm-everything branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm?
