Re: [PATCH] mm/sparse: fix BUILD_BUG_ON check for section map alignment

[Muchun Song]

> On Apr 1, 2026, at 15:26, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 4/1/26 09:23, Muchun Song wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 1, 2026, at 15:08, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4/1/26 06:01, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I misread it earlier — I thought it was about the memory
>>>> section size, but it's actually about the memmap size. Let me respond
>>>> again to your question. On the powerpc architecture, when PFN_SECTION_SHIFT
>>>> is 6 and PAGE_SHIFT is 18, it does seem that the memmap of a memory
>>>> section would be smaller than a single page.
>>> 
>>> Right, and I am saying we don't care about that and do not support it.
>>> 
>>> For example, most vmemmap code I am aware of relies on a single section
>>> covering full pages.
>>> 
>>> So I don't think this patch here adds any value, except faking that we
>>> might be supporting something we don't?
>> 
>> Got it.
>> 
>> My original motivation was simply that when I read this part of the code,
>> the comment felt a bit off to me, so I just fixed it casually. But if it
>> ends up creating the impression that "we might be supporting something
>> we don't," as you said, then I'm fine with dropping this patch.
> 
> Can you rework your patch to only simplify the comment, and to clarify
> that we always expect a single section to cover full pages?

No problem.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David