On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > 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. OK, I see, but is an additional code worth it for the non-development case? I mean why should we be testing for something that shouldn't happen normally? Is it too easy to get things wrong or what is the underlying reason to change it now? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
