From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx149.postini.com [74.125.245.149]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9E1E6B005A for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:30:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:31:41 +0200 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: oops in copy_page_rep() Message-ID: <20130108163141.GA27555@shutemov.name> References: <20130105152208.GA3386@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Hillf Danton , Hugh Dickins , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > >> > >> Hmm. Is there some reason we never need to worry about it for the > >> "pmd_numa()" case just above? > >> > >> A comment about this all might be a really good idea. > >> > > Yes Sir, added. > > Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but > do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not. It does. The check should be moved up. > Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The > *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd > like to understand it. We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too. Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was correct: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/402 -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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