On 21/09/2023 18:38, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 21/09/2023 17:30, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 17:19:59 +0100 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Ryan Roberts (8): >>>> parisc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> powerpc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> riscv: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> s390: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> sparc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> mm: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> arm64: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma >>>> arm64: hugetlb: Fix set_huge_pte_at() to work with all swap entries >>>> >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +- >>>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 22 ++++---------- >>>> arch/parisc/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +- >>>> arch/parisc/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 4 +-- >>>> .../include/asm/nohash/32/hugetlb-8xx.h | 3 +- >>>> arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hugetlbpage.c | 2 +- >>>> arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/radix_hugetlbpage.c | 2 +- >>>> arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/8xx.c | 2 +- >>>> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c | 7 ++++- >>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +- >>>> arch/riscv/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 3 +- >>>> arch/s390/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 8 +++-- >>>> arch/s390/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 8 ++++- >>>> arch/sparc/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 8 +++-- >>>> arch/sparc/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 8 ++++- >>>> include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h | 6 ++-- >>>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 ++-- >>>> mm/damon/vaddr.c | 2 +- >>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 30 +++++++++---------- >>>> mm/migrate.c | 2 +- >>>> mm/rmap.c | 10 +++---- >>>> mm/vmalloc.c | 5 +++- >>>> 22 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looks scary but it's actually a fairly modest patchset. It could >>> easily be all rolled into a single patch for ease of backporting. >>> Maybe Greg has an opinion? >> >> Yes, I thought about doing that; or perhaps 2 patches - one for the interface >> change across all arches and core code, and one for the actual bug fix? > > I think this would make more sense, especially if we want to backport > it. The first patch would have no functional change, only an interface > change, followed by the arm64 fix. OK I'll do it like this for v2. >
