Quoting Will Deacon (2017-03-23 07:22:39) > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:39:08PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting James Morse (2017-02-20 03:10:10) > > > > > > You're right the user-address side of things will get caught in > > > do_page_fault(). > > > I was trying to badly-explain 'is_permission_fault(esr)' isn't as general > > > purpose as its name and prototype suggest, it only gives the results that > > > the > > > PAN checks expect when called with a user address. > > > > Ok. I'd rather not change the function in this patch because I'm only > > moving the code around to use it higher up in the file. But if you > > prefer I can combine the code movement with the addition of a new 'addr' > > argument to this function and rework things based on that. > > Are you planning to send a v3 of this? >
Sorry for the late reply. I was hoping that James would indicate preference one way or the other. I suppose no reply means "yes" here, so I'll go ahead and fold everything together into one patch and resend.
