From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vRTnK08SqzDq8X for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:36:20 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1487561746.23576.170.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm/hugetlb: Filter out hugepage size not supported by page table layout From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:35:46 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: <1487499527-16166-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1487538354.23576.158.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 09:02 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > To avoid crashes like the one reported in the commit message due to  > buggy firmware ? I don't want Linux to make those assumptions. We should fix the FW. Think of backward compat for example. > Also > It can serve as an easy way to understand what hugepage sizes are  > supported by different platforms. > I am yet to figure out what the FSL_BOOK3E and PPC_8xx #ifdef above > that  > hunk is all about. Having > the supported hugepage size clearly verified against makes it easy ? > > -aneesh