On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:48:50PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 16:43, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:07:52AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >> +static inline void __clear_full_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
> >> addr,
> >> + pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr, int full)
> >> +{
> >> + for (;;) {
> >> + __ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, ptep);
> >> + if (--nr == 0)
> >> + break;
> >> + ptep++;
> >> + addr += PAGE_SIZE;
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >
> > The loop construct is a bit odd; can't this be:
>
> I found it a little odd at first, but its avoiding the ptep and addr
> increments
> the last time through the loop. Its the preferred pattern for these functions
> in
> core-mm. See default set_ptes(), wrprotect_ptes(), clear_full_ptes() in
> include/linux/pgtable.h.
>
> So I'd prefer to leave it as is so that we match them. What do you think?
That's fair enough; it I'm happy with it as-is.
Mark.
