On 02/22/2018 01:46 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>> +static inline pgprotval_t check_pgprot(pgprot_t pgprot)
>> +{
>> + pgprotval_t massaged_val = massage_pgprot(pgprot);
>> +
>> + WARN_ONCE(pgprot_val(pgprot) != massaged_val,
>> + "attempted to set unsupported pgprot: %016lx "
>> + "bits: %016lx supported: %016lx\n",
>> + pgprot_val(pgprot),
>> + pgprot_val(pgprot) ^ massaged_val,
>> + __supported_pte_mask);
> Perhaps use VM_WARN_ONCE instead to avoid any overhead on production
> systems?
Sounds sane enough. I'll change it.
