[PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Max Filippov
Fixmap on xtensa grows upwards, i.e. bigger fixmap entry index corresponds to a higher virtual address. This was lost in highmem generalization resulting in the following runtime warnings: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 18 at mm/highmem.c:494 kunmap_local_indexed+0x45/0x54 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID:

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Max, On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 08:34, Max Filippov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:36 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 05:50, Max Filippov wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:40 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> What's wrong with just doing the obvious and making the fixmap de

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-16 Thread Max Filippov
Hi Thomas, On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:34 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > I agree that the top down mechanics is not really intuitive, but that > does not justify the ifdeffery in the generic code. But then maybe xtensa did the right thing where everyone else just copied the not really intuitive imple

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Max, On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 04:23, Max Filippov wrote: > Fixmap on xtensa grows upwards, i.e. bigger fixmap entry index > corresponds to a higher virtual address. This was lost in highmem > generalization resulting in the following runtime warnings: Sorry for not noticing. > Fix it by adding __A

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Max Filippov
Hi Thomas, On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:40 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 04:23, Max Filippov wrote: > > Fixmap on xtensa grows upwards, i.e. bigger fixmap entry index > > corresponds to a higher virtual address. This was lost in highmem > > generalization resulting in the follow

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Max, On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 05:50, Max Filippov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:40 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 04:23, Max Filippov wrote: >> > Fixmap on xtensa grows upwards, i.e. bigger fixmap entry index >> > corresponds to a higher virtual address. This was lost in h

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-13 Thread Max Filippov
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:36 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 05:50, Max Filippov wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:40 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> What's wrong with just doing the obvious and making the fixmap defines > >> the other way round? > > > > It becomes really awk

Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

2020-11-16 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Max, On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 06:47, Max Filippov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:34 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> I agree that the top down mechanics is not really intuitive, but that >> does not justify the ifdeffery in the generic code. > > But then maybe xtensa did the right thing where every