On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Hillf Danton <dhi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hmm. Is there some reason we never need to worry about it for the > >> "pmd_numa()" case just above? > >> > >> A comment about this all might be a really good idea. > >> > > Yes Sir, added. > > Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but > do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not.
It does. The check should be moved up. > Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The > *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd > like to understand it. We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too. Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was correct: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/402 -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
