On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:07:04AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

quoted

quoted

+	if (seg->end + 1 > VMEM_MAX_PHYS || seg->end + 1 < seg->start_addr) {
+		rc = -ERANGE;
+		goto out_resource;
+	}
+

...

quoted

quoted

+struct range arch_get_mappable_range(void)
+{
+	struct range memhp_range;
+
+	memhp_range.start = 0;
+	memhp_range.end =  VMEM_MAX_PHYS;
+	return memhp_range;
+}
+
 int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
 		    struct mhp_params *params)
 {

@@ -291,6 +300,7 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(params->pgprot.pgprot != PAGE_KERNEL.pgprot))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
+	VM_BUG_ON(!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 1));
 	rc = vmem_add_mapping(start, size);
 	if (rc)

Is there a reason why you added the memhp_range_allowed() check call
to arch_add_memory() instead of vmem_add_mapping()? If you would do

As I had mentioned previously, memhp_range_allowed() is available with
CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG but vmem_add_mapping() is always available. Hence
there will be a build failure in vmem_add_mapping() for the range check
memhp_range_allowed() without memory hotplug enabled.

quoted

that, then the extra code in __segment_load() wouldn't be
required.
Even though the error message from memhp_range_allowed() might be
highly confusing.

Alternatively leaving __segment_load() and vmem_add_memory() unchanged
will create three range checks i.e two memhp_range_allowed() and the
existing VMEM_MAX_PHYS check in vmem_add_mapping() on all the hotplug
paths, which is not optimal.

Ah, sorry. I didn't follow this discussion too closely. I just thought
my point of view would be clear: let's not have two different ways to
check for the same thing which must be kept in sync.
Therefore I was wondering why this next version is still doing
that. Please find a way to solve this.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel