On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:57 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > > > From: Alastair D'Silva <alast...@d-silva.org> > > > > > > > > If a memory section comes in where the physical address is > > > > greater > > > > than > > > > that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not > > > > trigger the > > > > bug and instead return a bogus section number. > > > > > > > > This patch tracks whether the section was actually found, and > > > > triggers the > > > > bug if not. > > > > > > Why do we want/need that? In other words the changelog should > > > contina > > > WHY and WHAT. This one contains only the later one. > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll update the comment. > > > > During driver development, I tried adding peristent memory at a > > memory > > address that exceeded the maximum permissable address for the > > platform. > > > > This caused __section_nr to silently return bogus section numbers, > > rather than complaining. > > OK, I see, but is an additional code worth it for the non-development > case? I mean why should we be testing for something that shouldn't > happen normally? Is it too easy to get things wrong or what is the > underlying reason to change it now? >
It took me a while to identify what the problem was - having the BUG_ON would have saved me a few hours. I'm happy to just have the BUG_ON 'nd drop the new error return (I added that in response to Mike Rapoport's comment that the original patch would still return a bogus section number). -- Alastair D'Silva mob: 0423 762 819 skype: alastair_dsilva Twitter: @EvilDeece blog: http://alastair.d-silva.org
