[PATCHv4 1/2] arm64: Introduce {set,clear}_pte_bit

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 7:27 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:41:42PM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> index ffe1ba0..ca41449 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> @@ -149,46 +149,51 @@ extern struct page *empty_zero_page;
> >>  #define pte_valid_not_user(pte) \
> >>  	((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER)) == PTE_VALID)
> >>  
> >> -static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
> >> +static pte_t clear_pte_bit(pte_t pte, pgprot_t prot)
> >>  {
> >> -	pte_val(pte) &= ~PTE_WRITE;
> >> +	pte_val(pte) &= ~pgprot_val(prot);
> >>  	return pte;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -static inline pte_t pte_mkwrite(pte_t pte)
> >> +static pte_t set_pte_bit(pte_t pte, pgprot_t prot)
> >>  {
> >> -	pte_val(pte) |= PTE_WRITE;
> >> +	pte_val(pte) |= pgprot_val(prot);
> >>  	return pte;
> >>  }
> > 
> > Why these two functions don't have an "inline"?
> > 
> 
> That's an error on my part.
> 
> Will, you mentioned you applied these patches already, how
> would you like to fix this up?

Yup, I can easily add the missing inline keywords. Did you see Catalin's
other comment? It looks like we're missing a '-1' on the end address before
checking whether or not it sits in a module. If you confirm, I can add that
too.

Will