To is_vmalloc_addr() to check if an address is a vmalloc address
instead of checking VMALLOC_START and VMALLOC_END manually.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen <orca.c...@gmail.com>
---
arch/mn10300/kernel/gdb-stub.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/m
To is_vmalloc_addr() to check if an address is a vmalloc address
instead of checking VMALLOC_START and VMALLOC_END manually.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/mn10300/kernel/gdb-stub.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/mn10300/kernel/gdb-stub.c b/arch
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:40:59PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:59:32AM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
> > In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
> > a section-aligned value in sanity_check_meminfo().
> >
> > H
because the memblock_reserve() calls
in arm_memblock_init().
*** BLURB HERE ***
Min-Hua Chen (2):
arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping
arm: use max_lowmem_limit in find_limit()
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 48
, arm_lowmem_limit cannot be changed by a public API. Second, the
high_memory is set by arm_lowmem_limit and is a natural limit of
low memory area in bootmem_init().
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b
memblock layout. So we can say that the first section-aligned limit
is valid during map_lowmem(). Hence fix the problem described above.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 48 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff
because the memblock_reserve() calls
in arm_memblock_init().
*** BLURB HERE ***
Min-Hua Chen (2):
arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping
arm: use max_lowmem_limit in find_limit()
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 48
, arm_lowmem_limit cannot be changed by a public API. Second, the
high_memory is set by arm_lowmem_limit and is a natural limit of
low memory area in bootmem_init().
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
memblock layout. So we can say that the first section-aligned limit
is valid during map_lowmem(). Hence fix the problem described above.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 48 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:40:59PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:59:32AM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
a section-aligned value in sanity_check_meminfo().
However, the section-aligned memblock may
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:47:08PM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
> > @@ -1384,6 +1351,15 @@ static void __init map_lowmem(void)
> >
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:47:08PM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
@@ -1384,6 +1351,15 @@ static void __init map_lowmem(void)
create_mapping(map
by arm_lowmem_limit and is a natural limit of
low memory area in bootmem_init().
thanks,
Min-Hua
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 44 ++--
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm
>From d8dbec3573b02afd8a23fe10f92bc0d324b0c951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Min-Hua Chen
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:07:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm: improve non-section-aligned low memory mapping
In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
a section-aligned va
From d8dbec3573b02afd8a23fe10f92bc0d324b0c951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:07:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm: improve non-section-aligned low memory mapping
In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
a section-aligned value
by arm_lowmem_limit and is a natural limit of
low memory area in bootmem_init().
thanks,
Min-Hua
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mm/init.c |2 +-
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 44 ++--
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
>> In /proc/vmallocinfo, it's good to show the physical address
>> of each ioremap in vmallocinfo. Add physical address information
>> in arm64 ioremap.
>
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 04:52:10PM +, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
In /proc/vmallocinfo, it's good to show the physical address
of each ioremap in vmallocinfo. Add physical address information
in arm64 ioremap
_nv013519rm+0x57/0xa0
[nvidia] phys=f8008000 ioremap
0xc9000480-0xc90004821000 135168 e1000_probe+0x22c/0xb95
[e1000e] phys=f430 ioremap
0xc900049c-0xc900049e1000 135168 _nv013521rm+0x4d/0xd0
[nvidia] phys=e014 ioremap
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm64/mm
_nv013519rm+0x57/0xa0
[nvidia] phys=f8008000 ioremap
0xc9000480-0xc90004821000 135168 e1000_probe+0x22c/0xb95
[e1000e] phys=f430 ioremap
0xc900049c-0xc900049e1000 135168 _nv013521rm+0x4d/0xd0
[nvidia] phys=e014 ioremap
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:15:10PM +0000, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
>> Setup return path for el1_undef since el1_undef may
>> be handled by handlers.
>
> Did you find a real issue or it was just code inspection.
*/
if (!aarch32_break_handler(regs))
return;
if (call_undef_hook(regs) == 0)
return;
...
}
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index
*/
if (!aarch32_break_handler(regs))
return;
if (call_undef_hook(regs) == 0)
return;
...
}
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:15:10PM +, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
Setup return path for el1_undef since el1_undef may
be handled by handlers.
Did you find a real issue or it was just code inspection.
Thanks for your
In check_slab, s->name is passed incorrectly to the error
messages. It will cause confusing error messages if the object
check fails. This patch fix this bug by removing s->name.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
mm/slub.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff
In check_slab, s-name is passed incorrectly to the error
messages. It will cause confusing error messages if the object
check fails. This patch fix this bug by removing s-name.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
mm/slub.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
Hi,
I have a problem about kernel_x_start and kernel_x_end in map_lowmem.
If the start address of DRAM is 0x2000 and PHYS_OFFSET is 0x2010 (1MB)
and _start is 0xc0008000 and SECTION_SIZE is 0x20 (2MB).
Let's say the memory between 0x2000 and 0x2010 is used by some H/W,
and not
Hi,
I have a problem about kernel_x_start and kernel_x_end in map_lowmem.
If the start address of DRAM is 0x2000 and PHYS_OFFSET is 0x2010 (1MB)
and _start is 0xc0008000 and SECTION_SIZE is 0x20 (2MB).
Let's say the memory between 0x2000 and 0x2010 is used by some H/W,
and not
Hi,
Use phys_addr_t to describe physical_address. When LPAE
is enabled, physical address can be more than 32 bits, so
we have to use phys_addr_t to handle the case.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
Hi,
Use phys_addr_t to describe physical_address. When LPAE
is enabled, physical address can be more than 32 bits, so
we have to use phys_addr_t to handle the case.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
Use phys_addr_t for physical address in alloc_init_pud. Although
phys_addr_t and unsigned long are 64 bit in arm64, it is better
to use phys_addr_t to describe physical addresses.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
Use phys_addr_t for physical address in alloc_init_pud. Although
phys_addr_t and unsigned long are 64 bit in arm64, it is better
to use phys_addr_t to describe physical addresses.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
fix most obvious coding style problems reported by checkpatch.pl -f mm/slub.c
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
mm/slub.c | 121 -
1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 3e8afcc
Change the type of physical address from unsigned long to phys_addr_t,
make valid_phys_addr_range more readable.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h |2 +-
arch/arm64/mm/mmap.c|2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
Change the type of physical address from unsigned long to phys_addr_t,
make valid_phys_addr_range more readable.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h |2 +-
arch/arm64/mm/mmap.c|2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
Change the type of physical address from unsigned long to phys_addr_t,
make valid_phys_addr_range more readable.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h |2 +-
arch/arm64/mm/mmap.c|2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
Change the type of physical address from unsigned long to phys_addr_t,
make valid_phys_addr_range more readable.
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h |2 +-
arch/arm64/mm/mmap.c|2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
fix most obvious coding style problems reported by checkpatch.pl -f mm/slub.c
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen orca.c...@gmail.com
---
mm/slub.c | 121 -
1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
Hi,
I found that valid_phys_addr_range does not use
phys_addr_t to describe physical address.
Is it better to change the type from unsigned long to phys_addr_t?
Thanks,
Min-Hua
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chen
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h
index e0ecdcf
Hi,
I found that valid_phys_addr_range does not use
phys_addr_t to describe physical address.
Is it better to change the type from unsigned long to phys_addr_t?
Thanks,
Min-Hua
Signed-off-by: Min-Hua Chenorca.c...@gmail.com
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h
40 matches
Mail list logo
