From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200510270016.j9R0Gdg26347@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Subject: RE: RFC: Cleanup / small fixes to hugetlb fault handling Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:16:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20051027000504.GC14742@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: 'David Gibson' Cc: Adam Litke , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hugh@veritas.com, William Irwin List-ID: David Gibson wrote on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:05 PM > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > David Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:49 PM > > > +int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > + unsigned long address, int write_access) > > > +{ > > > + pte_t *ptep; > > > + pte_t entry; > > > + > > > + ptep = huge_pte_alloc(mm, address); > > > + if (! ptep) > > > + /* OOM */ > > > + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS; > > > + > > > + entry = *ptep; > > > + > > > + if (pte_none(entry)) > > > + return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, address, ptep); > > > + > > > + /* we could get here if another thread instantiated the pte > > > + * before the test above */ > > > + > > > + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS; > > > } > > > > Are you sure about the last return? Looks like a typo to me, if *ptep > > is present, it should return VM_FAULT_MINOR. > > Oops, yes, thinko. Corrected patch shortly. While you at it, I think it would be preferable that the first return be VM_FAULT_OOM, your thoughts? - Ken -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org