On 2019/1/16 15:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 04:37, Yueyi Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> OK, thanks. But seems this mail be ignored, do i need re-sent the patch? >> >> On 2018/12/26 21:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 at 03:30, Yueyi Li <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Ard, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018/12/24 17:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>>> Does the following change fix your issue as well? >>>>> >>>>> index 9b432d9fcada..9dcf0ff75a11 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >>>>> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ void __init arm64_memblock_init(void) >>>>> * memory spans, randomize the linear region as well. >>>>> */ >>>>> if (memstart_offset_seed > 0 && range >= >>>>> ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN) { >>>>> - range = range / ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN + 1; >>>>> + range /= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN; >>>>> memstart_addr -= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN * >>>>> ((range * >>>>> memstart_offset_seed) >> 16); >>>>> } >>>> Yes, it can fix this also. I just think modify the first *range* >>>> calculation would be easier to grasp, what do you think? >>>> >>> I don't think there is a difference, to be honest, but I will leave it >>> up to the maintainers to decide which approach they prefer. > No it has been merged already. It is in v5.0-rc2 I think.
OK, thanks. :-)
