Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] powerpc/mm/book3s64: Update tlb flush routines to take a page walk cache flush argument
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Date: 2021-05-17 14:18:49
Also in:
linuxppc-dev
On 5/17/21 6:55 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On 5/17/21 1:40 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:quoted
On 5/15/21 10:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:quoted
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:13:19AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:...quoted
quoted
quoted
extern void radix__local_flush_all_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h index 215973b4cb26..f9f8a3a264f7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h@@ -45,13 +45,30 @@ static inline void tlbiel_all_lpid(bool radix) hash__tlbiel_all(TLB_INVAL_SCOPE_LPID); } +static inline void flush_pmd_tlb_pwc_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,^^^^quoted
+ unsigned long start, + unsigned long end, + bool flush_pwc) +{ + if (radix_enabled()) + return radix__flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, start, end, flush_pwc); + return hash__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^quoted
+}In this specific case we won't have build errors because, static inline void hash__flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long end) {Sorry, you completely lost me. Building parisc:allnoconfig ... failed -------------- Error log: In file included from arch/parisc/include/asm/cacheflush.h:7, from include/linux/highmem.h:12, from include/linux/pagemap.h:11, from include/linux/ksm.h:13, from mm/mremap.c:14: mm/mremap.c: In function 'flush_pte_tlb_pwc_range': arch/parisc/include/asm/tlbflush.h:20:2: error: 'return' with a value, in function returning voidAs replied here https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/8eedb441-a612-1ec8-8bf7-b40184de9f6f@linux.ibm.com/ (local) That was the generic header change in the patch. I was commenting about the ppc64 specific change causing build failures.
Ah, sorry. I wasn't aware that the following is valid C code
void f1()
{
return f2();
^^^^^^
}
as long as f2() is void as well. Confusing, but we live and learn.
Guenter