From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f69.google.com (mail-it0-f69.google.com [209.85.214.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156F46B025E for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-it0-f69.google.com with SMTP id b132so45383604iti.5 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:19:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dw4si19373425pac.33.2016.11.14.10.19.44 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:19:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:38 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] arm64: Use __pa_symbol for _end Message-ID: <20161114181937.GG3096@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20161102210054.16621-1-labbott@redhat.com> <20161102210054.16621-6-labbott@redhat.com> <20161102225241.GA19591@remoulade> <3724ea58-3c04-1248-8359-e2927da03aaf@redhat.com> <20161103155106.GF25852@remoulade> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161103155106.GF25852@remoulade> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mark Rutland Cc: Laura Abbott , Ard Biesheuvel , x86@kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Joonsoo Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marek Szyprowski On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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. At a quick grep, it seems to only be used by mips and x86 and a single place in mm/memblock.c. Since we haven't seen any issues on arm/arm64 without this macro, can we not just continue to use __pa()? Thanks. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org