[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908130921170.30024@viisi.sifive.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
cc: Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Andrew Waterman <andrew@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, greentime.hu@...ive.com,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Michael Clark <michaeljclark@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RISC-V: Implement sparsemem
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2019-08-13 12:04 a.m., Greentime Hu wrote:
>
> > Every architecture with mmu defines their own pfn_valid().
>
> Not true. Arm64, for example just uses the generic implementation in
> mmzone.h.
arm64 seems to define their own:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/Kconfig#n899
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/mm/init.c#n235
While there are many architectures which have their own pfn_valid();
oddly, almost none of them set HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID ?
- Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists