On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:07:04AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> + if (seg->end + 1 > VMEM_MAX_PHYS || seg->end + 1 < seg->start_addr) {
> >> + rc = -ERANGE;
> >> + goto out_resource;
> >> + }
> >> +
...
> >> +struct range arch_get_mappable_range(void)
> >> +{
> >> + struct range memhp_range;
> >> +
> >> + memhp_range.start = 0;
> >> + memhp_range.end = VMEM_MAX_PHYS;
> >> + return memhp_range;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> >> struct mhp_params *params)
> >> {
> >> @@ -291,6 +300,7 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(params->pgprot.pgprot != PAGE_KERNEL.pgprot))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> + VM_BUG_ON(!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 1));
> >> rc = vmem_add_mapping(start, size);
> >> if (rc)
> > Is there a reason why you added the memhp_range_allowed() check call
> > to arch_add_memory() instead of vmem_add_mapping()? If you would do
>
> As I had mentioned previously, memhp_range_allowed() is available with
> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG but vmem_add_mapping() is always available. Hence
> there will be a build failure in vmem_add_mapping() for the range check
> memhp_range_allowed() without memory hotplug enabled.
>
> > that, then the extra code in __segment_load() wouldn't be
> > required.
> > Even though the error message from memhp_range_allowed() might be
> > highly confusing.
>
> Alternatively leaving __segment_load() and vmem_add_memory() unchanged
> will create three range checks i.e two memhp_range_allowed() and the
> existing VMEM_MAX_PHYS check in vmem_add_mapping() on all the hotplug
> paths, which is not optimal.
Ah, sorry. I didn't follow this discussion too closely. I just thought
my point of view would be clear: let's not have two different ways to
check for the same thing which must be kept in sync.
Therefore I was wondering why this next version is still doing
that. Please find a way to solve this.
