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

[Laura Abbott]

On 8/27/2014 1:07 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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
>

Yes, Catalin's review was correct, we need the -1 as well.

Thanks,
Laura

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation