On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 09:04:41AM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
> + if (!pte_devmap(pte) && pte_special(pte) &&
> + !is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte))) {
Maybe this is a little too superficial and nitpicky, but I find the
ordering of the checks a little strange. Why not do the pte_special
first and then the exlusions from it later?
