On 11/20/2015 05:07 AM, yalin wang wrote:

quoted

+
+void set_huge_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
+			    pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
+{
+	size_t pgsize;
+	int i;
+	int ncontig = find_num_contig(mm, addr, ptep, pte, &pgsize);
+	unsigned long pfn;
+	pgprot_t hugeprot;
+
+	if (ncontig == 1) {
+		set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, pte);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	pfn = pte_pfn(pte);
+	hugeprot = __pgprot(pte_val(pfn_pte(pfn, 0) ^ pte_val(pte)));

is this should be pte_val(pfn_pte(pfn, 0)) ^ pte_val(pte)  ?

The code generated is identical either way, but I agree your way looks 
better.

-Dave