From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751446AbdGZNeb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:31 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60856 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750783AbdGZNe3 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:29 -0400
From: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        <steve.capper@arm.com>, <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour
References: <20170725154114.24131-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
        <20170725154114.24131-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
        <20170726085038.GB2981@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <20170726085325.GC2981@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <87bmo7jt31.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
        <20170726123357.GP2981@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:34:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> (Michal Hocko's message of
        "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:04 +0200")
Message-ID: <8760efjp98.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> writes:

> On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> [...]
>> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar
>> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not
>> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages.
>> > 
>> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in
>> > the patch?
>> 
>> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions
>> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless
>> really necessary.
>> 
>> That being said, I am not opposing your patch.
>
> Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should
> definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any
> immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either
> (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I
> will leave the decisions to others.

I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and
description.

Thanks for taking a look.