Re: [PATCH] mm: Correct guards for non_swap_entry()

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu,  5 Mar 2020 13:05:50 +0000 Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> If CONFIG_DEVICE_PRIVATE is defined, but neither CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE nor
> CONFIG_MIGRATION, then non_swap_entry() will return 0, meaning that the
> condition (non_swap_entry(entry) && is_device_private_entry(entry)) in
> zap_pte_range() will never be true even if the entry is a device private
> one.
> 
> Equally any other code depending on non_swap_entry() will not function
> as expected.

What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change?

Is a cc:stable needed?