Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:14:45 +0100 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ARM: memblock limit must be pmd-aligned |
| |
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:57:17AM -0700, Doug Berger wrote: > On 06/27/2017 03:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 05:50:03PM -0700, Doug Berger wrote: > >> On 06/26/2017 04:43 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > >>> On 06/26/2017 10:23 AM, Doug Berger wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > >>>> index 31af3cb59a60..2ae4f9c9d757 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > >>>> @@ -1226,7 +1226,7 @@ void __init adjust_lowmem_bounds(void) > >>>> if (memblock_limit) > >>>> memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, PMD_SIZE); > >>>> if (!memblock_limit) > >>>> - memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; > >>>> + memblock_limit = round_down(arm_lowmem_limit, PMD_SIZE); > >>>> > > > > Given we're always going to do the rounding, how about we move that out > > of the existing conditional, i.e. get rid of the first if, and have: > > > > if (!memblock_limit) > > memblock_limit = arm_lowmem_limit; > > > > /* > > * Round the memblock limit down to a pmd size. This > > * helps to ensure that we will allocate memory from the > > * last full pmd, which should be mapped. > > */ > > memblock_limit = round_down(memblock_limit, PMD_SIZE); > > > > Thanks, > > Mark. > That makes perfect sense to me. I will submit a v2 with this code > change. Should I add your Signed-off-by since it is your change?
Since you're writing the patch, there's no need.
Feel free to add my Suggested-by if you want, but I'm not too worried either way.
Thanks, Mark.
| |