Hi Dave,

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:06:01PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/17/19 12:14 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > -   if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
> > +   if (pmd_present(*pmd) ^ pmd_present(*pmd_k))
> >             set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k);
> 
> Wouldn't:
> 
>       if (pmd_present(*pmd) != pmd_present(*pmd_k))
>               set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k);
> 
> be a bit more intuitive?

Yes, right. That is much better, I changed it in the patch.

> But, either way, these look fine.  For the series:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>

Thanks!


        Joerg

Reply via email to