>>> On 22.08.13 at 13:27, Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 08:27:45AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 22.08.13 at 09:03, Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ok, how about this? >> > >> > static inline pte_t pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(pte_t pte) >> > { >> > BUG_ON(pte_present(pte)); >> > return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY); >> > } >> >> Sure, fine with me. Perhaps VM_BUG_ON() or some other similar >> construct limiting the scope when any extra code gets generated >> would do too. > > Sorry for delay, the patch is below. > >> >> But as said, even better would perhaps be to have it act on a >> swp_entry_t. > > swp_entry_t is too small already to keep additional status bit, > unfortunately. > --- > From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: Make sure _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit is not set on > present pte > > _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY bit should never be set on present pte so add > VM_BUG_ON to catch any potential future abuse. > > Also add a comment on _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY definition explaining > scope of its usage. > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> Thanks, Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
