On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> + if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey)) > > Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true > > ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed. > > I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated. It just > get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created. I think that will > simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as > possible.
That works as well.
