linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] RISC-V: Implement sparsemem

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

Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:24:33 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Andrew Waterman <andrew@...ive.com>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Zong Li <zong@...estech.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Michael Clark <michaeljclark@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] RISC-V: Implement sparsemem



On 2018-10-11 7:37 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Log2 of the upper bound of the size of a struct page. Used for sizing
>> + * the vmemmap region only, does not affect actual memory footprint.
>> + * We don't use sizeof(struct page) directly since taking its size here
>> + * requires its definition to be available at this point in the inclusion
>> + * chain, and it may not be a power of 2 in the first place.
>> + */
>> +#define STRUCT_PAGE_MAX_SHIFT	6
> 
> I know this is copied from arm64, but wouldn't this be a good time
> to move this next to the struct page defintion?
> 
> Also this:
> 
> arch/arm64/mm/init.c:   BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct page) > (1 << STRUCT_PAGE_MAX_SHIFT));
> 
> should move to comment code (or would have to be duplicated for riscv)

Makes sense. Where is a good place for the BUILD_BUG_ON in common code?

I've queued up changes for your other feedback.

Thanks,

Logan