On Sat, 23 May 2026 15:10:52 +0300, [email protected] wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2026 12:01:24 +0800, Li Zhe <[email protected]> wrote: > > diff --git a/mm/mm_init.c b/mm/mm_init.c > > index 17a84d4cda01..08feb24795b8 100644 > > --- a/mm/mm_init.c > > +++ b/mm/mm_init.c > > @@ -1075,13 +1075,15 @@ static void __ref zone_device_page_init_slow(struct > > page *page, > > [ ... skip 12 lines ... ] > > */ > > - return !page_ref_tracepoint_active(page_ref_set) && > > - IS_ALIGNED(sizeof(struct page), sizeof(u64)); > > + return !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && > > + !page_ref_tracepoint_active(page_ref_set) && > > + IS_ALIGNED(sizeof(struct page), sizeof(u64)); > > Oh, can we rewrite it as a sequence of > > if (cond) > return false; > ... > > return true; > > I believe the compilers would generate the same code.
Thanks for the review. I will fix this in the next revision. > > @@ -1104,30 +1106,42 @@ static inline void > > zone_device_template_tail_page_init(struct page *template, > > [ ... skip 10 lines ... ] > > + * copying it into @page. > > */ > > -static inline void zone_device_page_init_finish(struct page *page, > > - unsigned long pfn) > > +static inline void zone_device_page_update_template(struct page *template, > > + unsigned long pfn) > > Two tabs for indentation here from the first patch this function > appears please. Thanks for the review. I will fix this in the next revision. > Why do we need the intermediate step of _init_finish() if we later > change it to _update_template()? Instead of introducing an intermediate _init_finish() and renaming it later, I will simply use zone_device_page_update_template() directly from the beginning in the patch series. > > [ ... skip 30 lines ... ] > > + memcpy(page, template, sizeof(*page)); > > + else > > + memcpy_streaming(page, template, sizeof(*page)); > > > > - for (i = 0; i < sizeof(struct page) / sizeof(u64); i++) > > - dst[i] = src[i]; > > If you replace this with memcpy, what's the point for doing the loop in > intermediate patches? Thanks for the review. I will fix this in the next revision. Thanks, Zhe
