From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C9AC76195 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693A221841 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389620AbfGRIov (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:44:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47118 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726482AbfGRIov (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:44:51 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B67AD22; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:45 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Dave Hansen Cc: Joerg Roedel , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/mm: Sync also unmappings in vmalloc_sync_one() Message-ID: <20190718084445.GE13091@suse.de> References: <20190717071439.14261-1-joro@8bytes.org> <20190717071439.14261-3-joro@8bytes.org> <28a4c10f-f895-e8ff-d07b-9e4c35aa6342@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28a4c10f-f895-e8ff-d07b-9e4c35aa6342@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:06:01PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 7/17/19 12:14 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > - if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) > > + if (pmd_present(*pmd) ^ pmd_present(*pmd_k)) > > set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k); > > Wouldn't: > > if (pmd_present(*pmd) != pmd_present(*pmd_k)) > set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k); > > be a bit more intuitive? Yes, right. That is much better, I changed it in the patch. > But, either way, these look fine. For the series: > > Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen Thanks! Joerg