From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:51:07 +0000
Subject: [PATCHv2 5/6] arm64: Use __pa_symbol for _end
In-Reply-To: <3724ea58-3c04-1248-8359-e2927da03aaf@redhat.com>
References: <20161102210054.16621-1-labbott@redhat.com>
 <20161102210054.16621-6-labbott@redhat.com>
 <20161102225241.GA19591@remoulade>
 <3724ea58-3c04-1248-8359-e2927da03aaf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20161103155106.GF25852@remoulade>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 04:52 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:00:53PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >>
> >>__pa_symbol is technically the marco that should be used for kernel
> >>symbols. Switch to this as a pre-requisite for DEBUG_VIRTUAL.
> >
> >Nit: s/marco/macro/
> >
> >I see there are some other uses of __pa() that look like they could/should be
> >__pa_symbol(), e.g. in mark_rodata_ro().
> >
> >I guess strictly speaking those need to be updated to? Or is there a reason
> >that we should not?
> 
> If the concept of __pa_symbol is okay then yes I think all uses of __pa
> should eventually be converted for consistency and debugging.

I have no strong feelings either way about __pa_symbol(); I'm not clear on what
the purpose of __pa_symbol() is specifically, but I'm happy even if it's just
for consistency with other architectures.

However, if we use it I think that we should (attempt to) use it consistently
from the outset. 

Thanks,
Mark.