From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B6FC47255 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2202080C for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="0mQ7t5as" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AA2202080C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49LCpZ6K8YzDqlc for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:52:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=will@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=0mQ7t5as; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49LCmt38R9zDqSx for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:51:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15B2F20735; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:51:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589183483; bh=ujV3u+dsl5PKS0aIWtuPo2XlUIWTrnZfhH9932lJ3Ck=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=0mQ7t5as8jZps7eSFkQLnwLtzVeQdo1iP3qe/Hftt/g3zJxfzwQVDrNcWnrxBfusE WGRRbC87hk6tU7Y02J552JkiWyPKHGmHG8/2xNIIubv0rRSCeTtP6ug62nSc345L3i YbZ4edSRI7cSRvmZAntksnLnC8c2Z4vBB1WMY+EY= Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:51:15 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Christoph Hellwig , james.morse@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/31] arm64: fix the flush_icache_range arguments in machine_kexec Message-ID: <20200511075115.GA16134@willie-the-truck> References: <20200510075510.987823-1-hch@lst.de> <20200510075510.987823-3-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200510075510.987823-3-hch@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Roman Zippel , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Arnd Bergmann , Jessica Yu , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Michal Simek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" [+James and Catalin] On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 09:54:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The second argument is the end "pointer", not the length. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c > index 8e9c924423b4e..a0b144cfaea71 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c > @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ void machine_kexec(struct kimage *kimage) > * the offline CPUs. Therefore, we must use the __* variant here. > */ > __flush_icache_range((uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer, > + (uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer + > arm64_relocate_new_kernel_size); Urgh, well spotted. It's annoyingly different from __flush_dcache_area(). But now I'm wondering what this code actually does... the loop condition in invalidate_icache_by_line works with 64-bit arithmetic, so we could spend a /very/ long time here afaict. It's also a bit annoying that we do a bunch of redundant D-cache maintenance too. Should we use invalidate_icache_range() here instead? (and why does that thing need to toggle uaccess)? Argh, too many questions! Will