| Date | Tue, 21 May 2013 16:23:04 -0700 | From | Dave Hansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 29/39] thp: move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd() |
| |
On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > > It's confusing that mk_huge_pmd() has sematics different from mk_pte() > or mk_pmd(). > > Let's move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd() and adjust > prototype to match mk_pte().
Was there a motivation to do this beyond adding consistency? Do you use this later or something?
> @@ -746,7 +745,8 @@ static int __do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(struct mm_struct *mm, > pte_free(mm, pgtable); > } else { > pmd_t entry; > - entry = mk_huge_pmd(page, vma); > + entry = mk_huge_pmd(page, vma->vm_page_prot); > + entry = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(entry), vma); > page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, haddr); > set_pmd_at(mm, haddr, pmd, entry);
I'm not the biggest fan since this does add lines of code, but I do appreciate the consistency it adds, so:
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
|