On 20.01.21 09:28, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 18.01.21 14:13, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This overrides arch_get_mappabble_range() on s390 platform which will be
>>> used with recently added generic framework. It modifies the existing range
>>> check in vmem_add_mapping() using arch_get_mappable_range(). It also adds a
>>> VM_BUG_ON() check that would ensure that memhp_range_allowed() has already
>>> been called on the hotplug path.
>>>
>>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/s390/mm/init.c | 1 +
>>> arch/s390/mm/vmem.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>> index 73a163065b95..97017a4bcc90 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ 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, true));
>>> rc = vmem_add_mapping(start, size);
>>> if (rc)
>>> return rc;
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/vmem.c b/arch/s390/mm/vmem.c
>>> index 01f3a5f58e64..afc39ff1cc8d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/vmem.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/vmem.c
>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>> * Author(s): Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> */
>>>
>>> +#include <linux/memory_hotplug.h>
>>> #include <linux/memblock.h>
>>> #include <linux/pfn.h>
>>> #include <linux/mm.h>
>>> @@ -532,11 +533,23 @@ void vmem_remove_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
>>> mutex_unlock(&vmem_mutex);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +struct range arch_get_mappable_range(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct range memhp_range;
>>
>> You could do:
>>
>> memhp_range = {
>> .start = 0,
>> .end = VMEM_MAX_PHYS - 1,
>> };
>>
>> Similar in the arm64 patch.
>
> There is a comment block just before this assignment on arm64. Also
> it seems like code style preference and Heiko had originally agreed
> on this particular patch. Could we just leave it unchanged please ?
That's not how review works. But as I said, "You could do".
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
