Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] Fix set_huge_pte_at() panic on arm64

Ryan Roberts
2023-09-22T07:42:44Z

On 21/09/2023 18:38, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 21/09/2023 17:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 17:19:59 +0100 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> Ryan Roberts (8):
>>>> parisc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> powerpc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> riscv: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> s390: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> sparc: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> mm: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> arm64: hugetlb: Convert set_huge_pte_at() to take vma
>>>> arm64: hugetlb: Fix set_huge_pte_at() to work with all swap entries
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +-
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 22 ++++----------
>>>> arch/parisc/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +-
>>>> arch/parisc/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 4 +--
>>>> .../include/asm/nohash/32/hugetlb-8xx.h | 3 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hugetlbpage.c | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/radix_hugetlbpage.c | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/8xx.c | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c | 7 ++++-
>>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 2 +-
>>>> arch/riscv/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 3 +-
>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 8 +++--
>>>> arch/s390/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 8 ++++-
>>>> arch/sparc/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 8 +++--
>>>> arch/sparc/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 8 ++++-
>>>> include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h | 6 ++--
>>>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 ++--
>>>> mm/damon/vaddr.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 30 +++++++++----------
>>>> mm/migrate.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/rmap.c | 10 +++----
>>>> mm/vmalloc.c | 5 +++-
>>>> 22 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Looks scary but it's actually a fairly modest patchset. It could
>>> easily be all rolled into a single patch for ease of backporting.
>>> Maybe Greg has an opinion?
>>
>> Yes, I thought about doing that; or perhaps 2 patches - one for the interface
>> change across all arches and core code, and one for the actual bug fix?
>
> I think this would make more sense, especially if we want to backport
> it. The first patch would have no functional change, only an interface
> change, followed by the arm64 fix.

OK I'll do it like this for v2.

>