From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355C3440441 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u9so69631721ykd.1 for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:14:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com. [119.145.14.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m124si7002422ywb.38.2016.02.06.00.14.38 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:14:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <56B5AB4F.3030809@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 16:14:07 +0800 From: zhong jiang MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Have some confusion about the pfn_valid() ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mel@csn.ul.ie Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Hi In my opinion, pfn_valid() is meant to be able to tell if a given PFN has valid section, and That section can contain corresponding mem_map. but, the section can be has holes, the corresponding mem_map also be allcoated, resulting in treating the PFN as valid incorrect. what's problem for the interpretation of the above? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751510AbcBFIOa (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:14:30 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:47974 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779AbcBFIO3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:14:29 -0500 Message-ID: <56B5AB4F.3030809@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 16:14:07 +0800 From: zhong jiang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: , LKML Subject: Have some confusion about the pfn_valid() ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.29.68] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.56B5AB5E.0042,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: de5fd58bc610e205c43cdc591c32dae4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi In my opinion, pfn_valid() is meant to be able to tell if a given PFN has valid section, and That section can contain corresponding mem_map. but, the section can be has holes, the corresponding mem_map also be allcoated, resulting in treating the PFN as valid incorrect. what's problem for the interpretation of the above?