Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Trigger bug on if a section is not found in __section_nr
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed Jun 26 2019 - 02:57:55 EST
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 <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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?