On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 17:11 +0800, Bin Yang wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 09:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:57 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The last patch which does the overlap check is equally broken:
> >
On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 09:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:57 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > The last patch which does the overlap check is equally broken:
> >
> > Sorry that I did not understand the broken of last patc
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:57 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > The last patch which does the overlap check is equally broken:
>
> Sorry that I did not understand the broken of last patch.
I meant 4/5 sorry. That's the one which introduces the overlap che
On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:57 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Bin Yang wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > @@ -629,6 +629,22 @@ try_preserve_large_page(pte_t *kpte, unsigned long
> > address,
> > new_prot = static_protections(req_prot
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Bin Yang wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -629,6 +629,22 @@ try_preserve_large_page(pte_t *kpte, unsigned long
> address,
> new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address, pfn);
>
> /*
> + * The static_protections()
In try_preserve_large_page(), the check for
pgprot_val(new_prot) == pgprot_val(old_port) can definitely
be done at first to avoid redundant checking.
The approach and some of the comments came from Thomas Gleixner's
email example for how to do this
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Bi
6 matches
Mail list logo
