Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:35:19 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        liubo <liubo254@huawei.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] pgtable: improve pte_protnone() comment
Message-ID: <20230802153519.ryds4omveq5zbtex@techsingularity.net>
References: <20230801124844.278698-1-david@redhat.com>
 <20230801124844.278698-6-david@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230801124844.278698-6-david@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:48:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Especially the "For PROT_NONE VMAs, the PTEs are not marked
> _PAGE_PROTNONE" is wrong: doing an mprotect(PROT_NONE) will end up
> marking all PTEs on x86 as _PAGE_PROTNONE, making pte_protnone()
> indicate "yes".
> 
> So let's improve the comment, so it's easier to grasp which semantics
> pte_protnone() actually has.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs