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

Catalin Marinas
2023-09-21T22:12:52Z

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.

--
Catalin