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