Re: [PATCH 11/12] fs/proc/page: clarify comment in get_max_dump_pfn()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 03:33:04PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> pfn_to_online_page() will only succeed on some PFNs within the same
> section, not necessarily all. Let's make that clearer.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

Nit on comment below, but LGTM so:

Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  fs/proc/page.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/page.c b/fs/proc/page.c
> index 260772b20bd99..6856ff3e3cf28 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/page.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/page.c
> @@ -31,10 +31,9 @@ static inline unsigned long get_max_dump_pfn(void)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>  	/*
> -	 * The memmap of early sections is completely populated and marked
> -	 * online even if max_pfn does not fall on a section boundary -
> -	 * pfn_to_online_page() will succeed on all pages. Allow inspecting
> -	 * these memmaps.
> +	 * If max_pfn does not fall on a section boundary, pfn_to_online_page()
> +	 * can succeed on PFNs beyond max_pfn within the same section. Allow
> +	 * inspecting these memmaps.

'Allow inspection of' these memmaps is clearer I think. But this odd turn of
phrase existed before this change also :)

>  	 */
>  	return round_up(max_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>  #else
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo