On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote: > > On 11/02/2016 04:52 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > >On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:00:53PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote: > > >> > > >>__pa_symbol is technically the marco that should be used for kernel > > >>symbols. Switch to this as a pre-requisite for DEBUG_VIRTUAL. > > > > > >Nit: s/marco/macro/ > > > > > >I see there are some other uses of __pa() that look like they could/should be > > >__pa_symbol(), e.g. in mark_rodata_ro(). > > > > > >I guess strictly speaking those need to be updated to? Or is there a reason > > >that we should not? > > > > If the concept of __pa_symbol is okay then yes I think all uses of __pa > > should eventually be converted for consistency and debugging. > > I have no strong feelings either way about __pa_symbol(); I'm not clear on what > the purpose of __pa_symbol() is specifically, but I'm happy even if it's just > for consistency with other architectures. At a quick grep, it seems to only be used by mips and x86 and a single place in mm/memblock.c. Since we haven't seen any issues on arm/arm64 without this macro, can we not just continue to use __pa()? Thanks. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>