From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com (e28smtp02.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3672B1A02E6 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:20:52 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp02.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:50:49 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98507E0054 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:51:20 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id tAOBKLCK56492098 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:50:22 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id tAOBKKb4029408 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:50:21 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Denis Kirjanov Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 30/31] powerpc/mm: Move THP headers around In-Reply-To: References: <1448274160-28446-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1448274160-28446-31-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:50:18 +0530 Message-ID: <87io4rfxu5.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Denis Kirjanov writes: > On 11/23/15, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> We support THP only with book3s_64 and 64K page size. Move >> THP details to hash64-64k.h to clarify the same. ... >> -static inline void hpte_do_hugepage_flush(struct mm_struct *mm, >> - unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdp, >> - unsigned long old_pmd) >> -{ >> - >> - WARN(1, "%s called with THP disabled\n", __func__); > We can't reach this function with huge pages disabled, right? > Would it be better to use WARN_ON_ONCE? Shouldn't matter, if should never get called and if we get called, them something is really wrong, and mostly need a kernel fix. This will only happen during devel mistakes. -aneesh