[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v84h2tee.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:56:25 +0200
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Andreas Dilger
<adilger@...ger.ca>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Linux Kernel
Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Theodore
Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)"
<willy@...radead.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, Alexandre
Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Subject: Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?
Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de> writes:
> Fixed version:
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> index fa34cf55037b..af4192bc51d0 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> */
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> + memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), PAGE_SIZE);
> max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
Nice!
Can't we get rid of the if-statement, and max_mapped_address as well?
Björn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists