On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware)It's not so much arguing but rather trying to understand your concerns and your perception of what the final code should look like.
On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:It's not about what you're trying to achieve.
Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different perceptions about what I'm trying to achieve.
It's about the actual code.
You cannot do that
- split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);it's insane.
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (!ops->pmd_entry)
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
You *have* to call split_huge_pmd() if you're doing to call the
I don't understand why you are arguing. This is not about "feelings"
and "intentions" or about "trying to achieve".
This is about cold hard "you can't do that", and this is now the third
time I tell you _why_ you can't do that: you can't walk the last level
if you don't _have_ a last level. You have to split the pmd to do so.
End of story.
So is it that you want pte_entry() to be strictly called for *each* virtual address, even if we have a pmd_entry()?
In that case I completely follow your arguments, meaning we skip this patch completely?