Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:17:40 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] arm64: Correct type for PUD macros
Message-ID: <20180116111740.tn6qy7yjs2d5ltx6@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180110190729.18383-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <20180110190729.18383-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180110190729.18383-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 07:07:26PM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> The PUD macros (PUD_TABLE_BIT, PUD_TYPE_MASK, PUD_TYPE_SECT) use the
> pgdval_t even when pudval_t is available. Even though the underlying
> type for both (u64) is the same it is confusing and may lead to issues
> in the future.
> 
> Fix this by using pudval_t to define the PUD_* macros.
> 
> Fixes: 084bd29810a56 ("ARM64: mm: HugeTLB support.")
> Fixes: 206a2a73a62d3 ("arm64: mm: Create gigabyte kernel logical mappings where possible")
> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

I queued this patch. I'll leave the KVM bits to Marc/Christoffer.

-- 
Catalin