> From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 10:40 PM > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Huaisheng Ye <yehs2007@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access. > > Assigning NULL to gfn of dax_direct_access is more intuitive and simple > > than offering a useless local variable. > > > > So direct_access needs to check validity of the pointer pfn For NULL > > assignment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c > > index 9d71492..018f990 100644 > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c > > @@ -233,7 +233,8 @@ __weak long __pmem_direct_access(struct pmem_device *pmem, > pgoff_t pgoff, > > PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))) > > return -EIO; > > *kaddr = pmem->virt_addr + offset; > > - *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags); > > + if (pfn) > > + *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, > pmem->pfn_flags); > > > > /* > > * If badblocks are present, limit known good range to the > > Looks good. You also need to update the unit test infrastructure > version of this operation in: > > tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c Yes, you are right. Cheers, Huaisheng Ye ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
