On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
Can you please trim your replies? It's a pain in the neck to find the
single line of information within a large pile of useless quoted text.
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > /*
> > - * We need to check the full range, whether
> > - * static_protection() requires a different pgprot for one of
> > - * the pages in the range we try to preserve:
> > + * Make sure that the requested pgprot does not violate the static
> > + * protections. Check the full large page whether one of the pages
> > + * in it results in a different pgprot than the first one of the
> > + * requested range. If yes, then the page needs to be split.
> > */
> > - addr = address & pmask;
> > + new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address, pfn, 1);
>
> "npg" is introduced by patch #3. It might be better to keep old API in
> this patch.
Yes. That's bogus. Will fix.
Thanks,
tglx
