Re: [PATCH] um: Abandon the _PAGE_NEWPROT bit

[Tiwei Bie]

Hi Johannes,

On 2024/10/11 15:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Tiwei,
> 
> So kind of a nit, but if the resulting code looks like this:
> 
>> @@ -184,17 +172,14 @@ static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
>>  {
>>  	if (likely(pte_get_bits(pte, _PAGE_RW)))
>>  		pte_clear_bits(pte, _PAGE_RW);
>> 	return pte;
>>  }
> 
> then the if really isn't needed?
> 
> Same for all the others, I guess.

Makes sense. It looks a bit odd. Will drop the if. Thanks for the review!

Regards,
Tiwei

> 
> johannes