linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/29] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:55:12 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/29] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:34:57 +0300
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jonathan,
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:04:49AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:59:18 +0300
> > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > All architecures use memblock for early memory management. There is no need
> > > > for the CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>  
> > > 
> > > Hi Mike,
> > > 
> > > A minor editing issue in here that is stopping boot on arm64 platforms with latest
> > > version of the mm tree.  
> > 
> > Can you please try the following patch:
> > 
> > 
> > From 079bd5d24a01df3df9500d0a33d89cb9f7da4588 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:29:27 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] of/fdt: fixup #ifdefs after removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK config
> >  option
> > 
> > The removal of HAVE_MEMBLOCK configuration option, mistakenly dropped the
> > wrong #endif. This patch restores that #endif and removes the part that
> > should have been actually removed, starting from #else and up to the
> > correct #endif
> > 
> > Reported-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> That's identical to the local patch I'm carrying to fix this so looks good to me.
> 
> For what it's worth given you'll probably fold this into the larger patch.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>

Well, this is up to Andrew now, as the broken patch is already in the -mm
tree.
 
> Thanks for the quick reply.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/fdt.c | 21 +--------------------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index 48314e9..bb532aa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -1119,6 +1119,7 @@ int __init early_init_dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
> >  #endif
> >  #ifndef MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR
> >  #define MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR	((phys_addr_t)~0)
> > +#endif
> >  
> >  void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> >  {
> > @@ -1175,26 +1176,6 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
> >  	return memblock_reserve(base, size);
> >  }
> >  
> > -#else
> > -void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > -{
> > -	WARN_ON(1);
> > -}
> > -
> > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_mark_hotplug_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > -{
> > -	return -ENOSYS;
> > -}
> > -
> > -int __init __weak early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch(phys_addr_t base,
> > -					phys_addr_t size, bool nomap)
> > -{
> > -	pr_err("Reserved memory not supported, ignoring range %pa - %pa%s\n",
> > -		  &base, &size, nomap ? " (nomap)" : "");
> > -	return -ENOSYS;
> > -}
> > -#endif
> > -
> >  static void * __init early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch(u64 size, u64 align)
> >  {
> >  	return memblock_alloc(size, align);
> 
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.