Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] arm/pgtable: define PFN_PTE_SHIFT on arm and arm64

[David Hildenbrand]

> > > If high bits are used for
> > > something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that
> > > shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not
> > > detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > > Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just
> > > hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot().
> >
> > I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn().
>
> Agreed.

So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage):

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
@@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep,
                        break;
                ptep++;
                addr += PAGE_SIZE;
-               /*
-                * increment the pfn.
-                */
-               pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte)));
+               pte = pte_next_pfn(pte);
        }
 }
 


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb