From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755481AbZENPgh (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 11:36:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753064AbZENPg0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 11:36:26 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:36087 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753579AbZENPgZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 11:36:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0C3AAA.2080908@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:37:14 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Beulich CC: mingo@elte.hu, andi@firstfloor.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: simplify cpa_process_alias() References: <1242305390-21958-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1242305390-21958-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4A0C43C50200007800000ECA@vpn.id2.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <4A0C43C50200007800000ECA@vpn.id2.novell.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 14 May 2009 15:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Tejun Heo 14.05.09 14:49 >>> >> The two existing alias conditions in cpa_process_alias() are mutually >> exclusive and future ones are likely to be exclusive too. Simplify >> control flow to ease adding other alias cases. >> >> The within(vaddr, (unsigned long)_text, _brk_end) test is removed as >> it's guaranteed to be false if vaddr is in the page mapped area. > > I don't think that's correct - just consider the case where the > originally passed in virtual address is from the vmalloc area: In > that case, both the 1:1 mapping *and* the kernel mapping need to be > checked. Yeap, you're right. I was reading the second condition in reversal. Will update and repost. Thanks for spotting it. -- tejun