Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:31:41 +0200 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: oops in copy_page_rep() |
| |
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@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
|  |