pgtable: improve pte_protnone() comment
Especially the "For PROT_NONE VMAs, the PTEs are not marked _PAGE_PROTNONE" part is wrong: doing an mprotect(PROT_NONE) will end up marking all PTEs on x86_64 as _PAGE_PROTNONE, making pte_protnone() indicate "yes". So let's improve the comment, so it's easier to grasp which semantics pte_protnone() actually has. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230803143208.383663-6-david@redhat.comSigned-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: liubo <liubo254@huawei.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment