From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qRGHX3RR0zDqVL for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:57:12 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:57:10 +1000 Received: from d23relay07.au.ibm.com (d23relay07.au.ibm.com [9.190.26.37]) by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3505B357805B for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:56:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay07.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u2I6uioO61997128 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:56:53 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u2I6u6kV004132 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:56:06 +1100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Ian Munsie To: "andrew.donnellan" Cc: linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl: fix setting of _PAGE_USER bit when handling page faults In-reply-to: <1458273681-18588-1-git-send-email-andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> References: <1458273681-18588-1-git-send-email-andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:30:23 +1100 Message-Id: <1458282296-sup-2460@x230.ozlabs.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Excerpts from andrew.donnellan's message of 2016-03-18 15:01:21 +1100: > Fixes: f204e0b8cedd ("cxl: Driver code for powernv PCIe based cards for > userspace access") It doesn't fix that since there was no cxl kernel API support at the time, so this wasn't a regression - just something we missed when the kernel api was added (I believe the broken test in the code was a left over from some early bringup work and would never have been exercised on an upstream kernel until then). > Currently, this should only affect cxlflash. We haven't run into any problems because of this that I am aware of - do we have a test case for this? > - if ((!ctx->kernel) || ~(dar & (1ULL << 63))) > + if ((!ctx->kernel) || !(dar & (1ULL << 63))) Should it be the top two bits? -Ian