[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190617133929.uz7fweirm4a6oqnk@mobilestation>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:39:30 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To: Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@...e.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mips: Print the kernel virtual mem layout on
debugging
Hello Paul
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:38:49AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:41:10PM +0000, Paul Burton wrote:
> > Hi Serge,
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 01:36:07AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report regarding this issue. I actually thought I
> > > tested the patch being buildable for 64bit systems. It turns out I
> > > didn't.(
> >
> > Easily done :)
> >
> > > Should I resend the fixed patch as a separate v3 one In-Reply-to this
> > > v2 patch or resubmit the patchset with cover-letter and only the fixed
> > > patch being there?
> >
> > Replying with just v3 of this patch will be fine, no need to resend the
> > cover letter.
> >
>
> Ok. I've just submitted the v3 version with fixed buildability problem.
>
> > I currently plan to submit a pull request for mips-next as-is, without
> > this patch, in the next day or two. There are a few last minute
> > submissions this time round that I'll then queue up & send a second pull
> > request next week, which this can be part of.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
>
> Regarding this patch being part of the mips mm init code. I've just found out
> that 32-bit arm subsystem maintainers removed the same functionality from the
> kernel 5.1. This also was removed from arm64 in kernel 4.15:
> commit 1c31d4e96b8c ("ARM: 8820/1: mm: Stop printing the virtual memory layout")
> commit 071929dbdd86 ("arm64: Stop printing the virtual memory layout")
>
> Maintainer of m68k and unicore32 discarded the printing as well:
> commit 1476ea250cf0 ("unicore32: stop printing the virtual memory layout")
> commit 31833332f798 ("m68k/mm: Stop printing the virtual memory layout")
>
> The reasoning of these removal was that since commit ad67b74d2469 ("printk:
> hash addresses printed with %p") the kernel virtual addresses weren't
> printed to the system log anyway. So instead of replacing the format string with
> "%px" they decided not to leak a virtual memory layout information and completely
> removed the printing. I don't really know why they didn't closed the printing for
> debug kernel only as we did, since the info might be useful in this case.
>
> Since I see a tendency of this functionality removal, we might need to
> reconsider this patch integration into the MIPS arch code. What do you think?
>
> Although some architectures still perform the virtual memory layout printing
> at boot-time: x86_32, parisc, xtensa, sh, nds32 (might be others).
>
> Cheers,
> -Sergey
So any update on this patch status?
Regards,
-Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists