David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> If high bits are used for >>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>> >>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >> >> Agreed. > > So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, > break; > ptep++; > addr += PAGE_SIZE; > - /* > - * increment the pfn. > - */ > - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); > + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); > } > } Agreed. -aneesh
