Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix call to subpage_protection()

From: Michael Ellerman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:53:03 +1100

On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 07:24 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 13:32 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > In:=20
> > >   powerpc/mm: Fix pgtable cache cleanup with CONFIG_PPC_SUBPAGE_PROT
> > >   commit d28513bc7f675d28b479db666d572e078ecf182d
> > >   Author: David Gibson <[email-masked]>
> > >=20
> > > subpage_protection() was changed to to take an mm rather a pgdir but it
> > > didn't change calling site in hashpage_preload().  The change wasn't
> > > noticed at compile time since hashpage_preload() used a void* as the
> > > parameter to subpage_protection().
> > ...=20
> > >=20
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils=
> > _64.c
> > > index 83f534d..5e95844 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
> > > @@ -1123,7 +1123,7 @@ void hash_preload(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned lo=
> > ng ea,
> > >  	else
> > >  #endif /* CONFIG_PPC_HAS_HASH_64K */
> > >  		rc =3D __hash_page_4K(ea, access, vsid, ptep, trap, local, ssiz
> e,
> > > -				    subpage_protection(pgdir, ea));
> > > +				    subpage_protection(mm, ea));
> > 
> > Type checking is fun :)
> > 
> > This is stable material no?
> 
> Yes.  In the bit you snipped was a:
> 
>   cc: [email-masked] (only 2.6.33 and newer)

Oh right, I thought you actually had to send it to them :D

> Fortunately it's not in 2.6.32 so the bug missed the distros.

Phew.

cheers