Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] pgtable: improve pte_protnone() comment

Mel Gorman
2023-08-02T15:36:37Z

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:48:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Especially the "For PROT_NONE VMAs, the PTEs are not marked
> _PAGE_PROTNONE" is wrong: doing an mprotect(PROT_NONE) will end up
> marking all PTEs on x86 as _PAGE_PROTNONE, making pte_protnone()
> indicate "yes".
>
> So let's improve the comment, so it's easier to grasp which semantics
> pte_protnone() actually has.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs