On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater > > than > > that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not > > trigger the > > bug and instead return a bogus section number. > > > > This patch tracks whether the section was actually found, and > > triggers the > > bug if not. > > Why do we want/need that? In other words the changelog should contina > WHY and WHAT. This one contains only the later one. > Thanks, I'll update the comment. During driver development, I tried adding peristent memory at a memory address that exceeded the maximum permissable address for the platform. This caused __section_nr to silently return bogus section numbers, rather than complaining. -- Alastair D'Silva mob: 0423 762 819 skype: alastair_dsilva Twitter: @EvilDeece blog: http://alastair.d-silva.org
