On 2026-02-06 13:59, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 2/6/26 12:58, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/6/26 7:45 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> On 2/6/26 12:13, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, It's just simply aligned with the MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE above.
>>>
>>> But does that work as expected for !SMP?
>>
>> In the case of !SMP, tlb_remove_table() will not be called:
>>
>> static inline void pgtable_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb, void *table,
>> bool is_page)
>> {
>> pgtable_free(table, is_page);
>> }
>
> Ah, okay. Confusing stuff. Would have been nice to document/mention that in
> the patch description.
>
> So if it compiles, all good
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <[email protected]>
>
It looks a bit weird, but it is actually more logically correct than
before the patch. Before this in the !SMP sparc64 case
__HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE_TABLE was defined even with no actual
__tlb_remove_table() present. But it did not matter in practice.
But I agree that a mention would not hurt.
Tested both with SMP and !SMP
Tested-by: Andreas Larsson <[email protected]> #sparc
Acked-by: Andreas Larsson <[email protected]> #sparc
Cheers,
Andreas
