Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:15:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Yang, Bin" <bin.yang@intel.com>
cc:     "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: fix cpu stuck issue in
 __change_page_attr_set_clr
In-Reply-To: <404E7043-0ADB-4A40-9A07-EBE33F26C8CB@intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807050811220.1579@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1530180340-18593-1-git-send-email-bin.yang@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807031442030.1601@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <0131cecd5d0456c2a109f4b8bdbfe558389671dd.camel@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807040849520.1816@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <3224aae1d09788aba687fd7bd9e088f233016fc8.camel@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807041119260.1816@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <34a76fad5c43c11ce8ceb491537b453d8053bdb2.camel@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807041221110.1816@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <E0B0C3E3-5AA5-4AEC-A11A-B55040A007C3@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807050708320.1579@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <404E7043-0ADB-4A40-9A07-EBE33F26C8CB@intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:

> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean I will improve the check loop in patch v2. 
> I just submitted patch v2. Thanks in advance for your kind review.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
> 
> Please do not top post.

Here again: Please do not top post.

and further down:

> and that can be done smart without massive looping in 4K steps, but we
> really want to analyze _first_ whether the checks are just silently fixing
> up sloppy callers and whether they are needed at all.

I can't see any analysis of that in your V2.

Thanks,

	tglx