I think it would be better to leave this for you since I'm not familiar with the relationship between vmemmap() and NUMA_NO_NODE. So I would just keep this patch in next version, is this fine with you? Thanks for your help:) Lecopzer Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2021年2月4日 週四 下午10:55寫道： > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 10:51:27PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 06:32:50PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > > > Arm64 provide defined macro for KERNEL_START and KERNEL_END, > > > > thus replace them by the abstration instead of using _text and _end. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c > > > > index 39b218a64279..fa8d7ece895d 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c > > > > @@ -218,8 +218,8 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void) > > > > phys_addr_t pa_start, pa_end; > > > > u64 i; > > > > > > > > - kimg_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(_text) & PAGE_MASK; > > > > - kimg_shadow_end = PAGE_ALIGN((u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(_end)); > > > > + kimg_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(KERNEL_START) & PAGE_MASK; > > > > + kimg_shadow_end = PAGE_ALIGN((u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow(KERNEL_END)); > > > > > > > > mod_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_VADDR); > > > > mod_shadow_end = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_END); > > > > @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void) > > > > clear_pgds(KASAN_SHADOW_START, KASAN_SHADOW_END); > > > > > > > > kasan_map_populate(kimg_shadow_start, kimg_shadow_end, > > > > - early_pfn_to_nid(virt_to_pfn(lm_alias(_text)))); > > > > + early_pfn_to_nid(virt_to_pfn(lm_alias(KERNEL_START)))); > > > > > > To be honest, I think this whole line is pointless. We should be able to > > > pass NUMA_NO_NODE now that we're not abusing the vmemmap() allocator to > > > populate the shadow. > > > > Do we need to fix this in this series? it seems another topic. > > If not, should this patch be removed in this series? > > Since you're reposting anyway, you may as well include a patch doing that. > If you don't, then I will. > > Will
