On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:38:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 25.08.21 12:20, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > I can see the documentation for pfn_valid() does not claim anything more > > than the presence of an memmap entry. But I wonder whether the confusion > > is wider-spread than just the DMA code. At a quick grep, try_ram_remap() > > assumes __va() can be used on pfn_valid(), though I suspect it relies on > > the calling function to check that the resource was RAM. The arm64 > > kern_addr_valid() returns true based on pfn_valid() and kcore.c uses > > standard memcpy on it, which wouldn't work for I/O (should we change > > this check to pfn_is_map_memory() for arm64?). > > kern_addr_valid() checks that there is a direct map entry, and that the > mapped address has a valid mmap. (copied from x86-64) > > Would you expect to have a direct map for memory holes and similar (IOW, > !System RAM)? I don't see where will it bail out for an IOMEM mapping before doing the pfn_valid() check... -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
