[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131211102025.GB19196@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:20:25 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, greg@...ah.com, toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap
On Tue, 10 Dec, at 10:12:21AM, Dave Young wrote:
> On 12/09/13 at 04:05pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:42:14PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > There's a lot of sparse warnings for code like below:
> > > void *a = early_memremap(phys_addr, size);
> > >
> > > early_memremap intend to map kernel memory with ioremap facility, the return
> > > pointer should be a kernel ram pointer instead of iomem one.
> > >
> > > For making the function clearer and supressing sparse warnings this patch
> > > do below two things:
> > > 1. cast to (__force void *) for the return value of early_memremap
> >
> > I'd guess this is to shut up the __iomem thing? And we're getting that
> > because we're using ioremap, ... hohum...
>
> Yes, IMHO early_memremap really should not return __iomem pointer since it's
> *memremap*...
This needs reviewing by at least one of the x86 folks, but it certainly
makes sense to me.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists