@@ -107,8 +107,6 @@ extern unsigned long empty_zero_page[PAG
#define pte_valid(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & PTE_VALID))
#define pte_valid_not_user(pte) \
((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER)) == PTE_VALID)
-#define pte_valid_young(pte) \
- ((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_AF)) == (PTE_VALID | PTE_AF))
#define pte_valid_user(pte) \
((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER)) == (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER))
@@ -116,9 +114,12 @@ extern unsigned long empty_zero_page[PAG
* Could the pte be present in the TLB? We must check mm_tlb_flush_pending
* so that we don't erroneously return false for pages that have been
* remapped as PROT_NONE but are yet to be flushed from the TLB.
+ * Note that we can't make any assumptions based on the state of the access
+ * flag, since ptep_clear_flush_young() elides a DSB when invalidating the
+ * TLB.
*/
#define pte_accessible(mm, pte) \
- (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid_young(pte))
+ (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid(pte))
/*
* p??_access_permitted() is true for valid user mappings (subject to the