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