> /*
> - * Then at what user virtual address will none of the range be found in vma?
> + * At what user virtual address will none of the range be found in vma?
> * Assumes that vma_address() already returned a good starting address.
> */
> static inline unsigned long vma_address_end(struct page_vma_mapped_walk
> *pvmw)
> {
> - struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
> - pgoff_t pgoff;
> + const struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
> + const pgoff_t pgoff = pvmw->pgoff;
> + pgoff_t pgoff_vma_start;
> unsigned long address;
> + pgoff_t pgoff_end;
>
> /* Common case, plus ->pgoff is invalid for KSM */
> if (pvmw->nr_pages == 1)
> return pvmw->address + PAGE_SIZE;
>
> - pgoff = pvmw->pgoff + pvmw->nr_pages;
> + pgoff_vma_start = vma_start_pgoff(vma);
> + pgoff_end = pgoff + pvmw->nr_pages;
> address = vma->vm_start +
> - ((pgoff - vma_start_pgoff(vma)) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + ((pgoff_end - pgoff_vma_start) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> /* Check for address beyond vma (or wrapped through 0?) */
> if (address < vma->vm_start || address > vma->vm_end)
> address = vma->vm_end;
Am I wrong or are all all changes here completely irrelevant for this patch?
You mention
"This is necessary in order to determine the correct VMA page
offset in vma_address_end() when pvmw->nr_pages > 1."
But I don't spot an effective change here.
--
Cheers,
David
