linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SMP bringup support for mt65xx socs

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]

Message-ID: <1438944618.14580.5.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date:	Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:50:18 +0800
From:	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SMP bringup support for mt65xx socs

On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 23:31 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:44:11PM +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 01:18:26 PM Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > > This series add SMP brinup support for MediaTek SoCs. This is based
> > > on v4.2-rc1 and Matthias' next branch (for dts parts).
<...>

> > Applied to v4.2-next/soc-2 and v4.2-next/dts-2 
> 
> I've just NAK'd one of the patches in this set; I don't tend to even see
> mediatek patches normally, as they all head into my junk mailfolder
> because mediatek's mail server setup is truely abysmal (it has broken
> reverse DNS - the DNS positively says that the mail server is not a
> legit owner of the name it claims to be.)

Hi Russell,

Hope you see this.

Thanks for your review. I already pass this information to our IT, hope
they can resolve this soon.


> The problem is that this patch series uses memblock_reserve() way after
> the memory has been transitioned out of memblock's control, so actually
> this has no effect.
> 
> I've seen a number of patches doing this.  I'm not sure what's soo friggin
> hard for people to understand: memblock is about the EARLY stages of
> getting the system up and running.  Once the memory has been handed
> over to the kernel's memory management, memblock MUST NOT BE USED to
> reserve memory.
> 
> There is one place, and one place only in the ARM kernel where
> memblock_reserve() is possible, and that's in the ->reserve machine
> callback.  NOWHERE ELSE is permissible.


It seems we can write memory-reserve node in device tree to do this as
well. Do you prefer us to reserve memblock in reserve callback or using
device tree?

Joe.C


--
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/