On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 12:36:21PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 5/28/21 10:43 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:56:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 May 2021 18:50:48 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>>> Can you please try Anshuman's patch "arm64/mm: Drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID": > >>>> > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1621947349-25421-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx > >>>> > >>>> It seems to me that the check for memblock_is_memory() in > >>>> arm64::pfn_valid() is what makes init_unavailable_range() to bail out for > >>>> section parts that are not actually populated and then we have > >>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(p)) for these pages. > >>> > >>> I acked Anshuman's patch, I think they all need to go in together. > >> > >> That's neat. Specifically which patches are we referring to here? > > > > arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid(): > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210511100550.28178-5-rppt@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > arm64/mm: Drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1621947349-25421-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx > > I dont see the above patch (which drops HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID on arm64) on linux-next > i.e. next-20210607. I might have missed some earlier context here but do not we want > to fallback on generic pfn_valid() after Mike's series ? Andrew, Can you please pick the two patches above? -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
