Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour

[Punit Agrawal]

Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> [...]
>> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar
>> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not
>> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages.
>> > 
>> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in
>> > the patch?
>> 
>> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions
>> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless
>> really necessary.
>> 
>> That being said, I am not opposing your patch.
>
> Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should
> definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any
> immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either
> (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I
> will leave the decisions to others.

I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and
description.

Thanks for taking a look.