Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:38 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] arm64: Use __pa_symbol for _end |
| |
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
| |