On Nov 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 15:50 -0500, Becky Bruce wrote: > > .../... > >> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MM_SLICES >> - psize = mmu_get_tsize(get_slice_psize(mm, ea)); >> - tsize = mmu_get_psize(psize); >> + psize = get_slice_psize(mm, ea); >> + tsize = mmu_get_tsize(psize); >> shift = mmu_psize_defs[psize].shift; >> #else >> - vma = find_vma(mm, ea); >> - psize = vma_mmu_pagesize(vma); /* returns actual size in bytes */ >> - asm (PPC_CNTLZL "%0,%1" : "=r" (lz) : "r" (psize)); >> - shift = 31 - lz; >> - tsize = 21 - lz; >> + psize = vma_mmu_pagesize(find_vma(mm, ea)); >> + shift = __ilog2(psize); >> + tsize = shift - 10; >> #endif > > Now, I know it was already there and you are just moving it around in > this patch but come on ... find_vma() here ? Really ? And with no result > checking nor boundary checking (remember it can return a vma that > doesn't enclose the address etc....). Now I know in this specific case > it -should- be safe but still... > > Now, the caller is just doing: > > book3e_hugetlb_preload(vma->vm_mm, address, *ptep); > > So why not just change the prototype and pass the vma down instead ?
Can we do this on top of the patchset instead of changing the existing patchset? - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
