From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lersek@redhat.com (Laszlo Ersek) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:08:11 +0100 Subject: Linux 3.19-rc3 In-Reply-To: References: <54AE7D53.2020305@redhat.com> <20150109121348.GD12942@leverpostej> <54AFE53A.4020004@redhat.com> <20150109175702.GA27787@leverpostej> <54B01FF0.3020900@arm.com> <20150109194333.GA23028@arm.com> <54B09CA3.1060501@redhat.com> <20150110133742.GA6999@arm.com> <54B181B7.5080503@redhat.com> Message-ID: <54B186AB.70806@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/10/15 20:56, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >> I grepped the tree for "fullmm", and only tlb_gather_mmu() seems to set >> it. There are several instances of that function, but each sets fullmm to: >> >> /* Is it from 0 to ~0? */ >> tlb->fullmm = !(start | (end+1)); >> >> So, a nonzero fullmm seems to imply (end == ~0UL). > > Yes. But note how it imples "end == ~0ul", but it does *not* imply > "tlb->end" having that value. Ooops! :) > tlb->end is initialized to zero (not obvious, but it's what the call > to __tlb_reset_range() does). It's then updated by > __tlb_adjust_range() as we actually flush individual pages. Thanks. Laszlo