Re: [PATCH 21/23] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Only drop uffd-wp special pte if required

[Mike Kravetz]

On 4/26/21 2:16 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:33:08PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 3/22/21 5:50 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> index 92710600596e..4047fa042782 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> @@ -121,14 +121,15 @@ long follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>>  			 unsigned long *, unsigned long *, long, unsigned int,
>>>  			 int *);
>>>  void unmap_hugepage_range(struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> -			  unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *);
>>> +			  unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *,
>>> +			  unsigned long);
>>>  void __unmap_hugepage_range_final(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>>  			  struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>  			  unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>>> -			  struct page *ref_page);
>>> +			  struct page *ref_page, unsigned long zap_flags);
>>>  void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>  				unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>>> -				struct page *ref_page);
>>> +				struct page *ref_page, unsigned long zap_flags);
>>
>> Nothing introduced with your patch, but it seems __unmap_hugepage_range_final
>> does not need to be in the header and can be static in hugetlb.c.
> 
> It seems to be used in unmap_single_vma() of mm/memory.c?

Sorry, that should have been __unmap_hugepage_range.  No need for you to
address in this series.

>>
>> Everything else looks good,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Please let me know whether you want my extra paragraph in the commit message,
> then I'll coordinate accordingly with the R-b.  Thanks!

Yes, please do add the extra paragraph.  

-- 
Mike Kravetz