On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:08:31PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > index 2de9d2e..0eeb4f09 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > @@ -40,13 +40,13 @@ int huge_pmd_unshare(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long *addr, pte_t *ptep)
> >
> > int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> > {
> > - return !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT);
> > + return pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT);
> > }
> >
> > int pud_huge(pud_t pud)
> > {
> > #ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
> > - return !(pud_val(pud) & PUD_TABLE_BIT);
> > + return pud_val(pud) && !(pud_val(pud) & PUD_TABLE_BIT);
> > #else
> > return 0;
> > #endif
>
> Thanks for the patch, I'll add the acks/reviews and Fixes: tags.
>
> (and I think I'll change pmd_val to pmd_present, same for pud; no
> functional difference)
A related question - can we ever have PROT_NONE on a huge pmd? I'll
leave this patch with pmd_val for now, it matches pmd_trans_huge().
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html