Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH v3 0/3] vmalloc translation support for PPC

----- Original Message ----- > On 02/16/2012 09:52 PM, Dave Anderson wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> ... >>>> So just do the same thing -- no verbose expanation is required. >>> >>> There are two ways to fix this : >>> >>> 1) Fix dump_mem_map*() to print the header only when there is >>> information to dump. >>> >>> --- a/memory.c >>> +++ b/memory.c >>> @@ -4637,13 +4637,6 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi) >>> continue; >>> } >>> >>> - if (print_hdr) { >>> - if (!(pc->curcmd_flags& HEADER_PRINTED)) >>> - fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr); >>> - print_hdr = FALSE; >>> - pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED; >>> - } >>> - >>> pp = section_mem_map_addr(section); >>> pp = sparse_decode_mem_map(pp, section_nr); >>> phys = (physaddr_t) section_nr * >>> PAGES_PER_SECTION() >>> * PAGESIZE(); >>> @@ -4854,6 +4847,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi) >>> } >>> >>> if (bufferindex> buffersize) { >>> + if (print_hdr) { >>> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags& >>> HEADER_PRINTED)) >>> + fprintf(fp, "%s", >>> hdr); >>> + print_hdr = FALSE; >>> + pc->curcmd_flags |= >>> HEADER_PRINTED; >>> + } >>> + >>> fprintf(fp, "%s", outputbuffer); >>> bufferindex = 0; >>> } >>> @@ -4867,6 +4867,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi) >>> } >>> >>> if (bufferindex> 0) { >>> + if (print_hdr) { >>> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags& HEADER_PRINTED)) >>> + fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr); >>> + print_hdr = FALSE; >>> + pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED; >>> + } >>> + >>> fprintf(fp, "%s", outputbuffer); >>> } >>> >>> Similarly for the dump_mem_map(). >>> >>> 2) Fix ppc_pgd_vtop() to return FALSE if the paddr> >>> machdep->memsize >>> >>> --- a/ppc.c >>> +++ b/ppc.c >>> @@ -438,6 +438,10 @@ ppc_pgd_vtop(ulong *pgd, ulong vaddr, >>> physaddr_t >>> *paddr, int verbose) >>> >>> *paddr = PAGEBASE(pte) + PAGEOFFSET(vaddr); >>> >>> + if (*paddr> machdep->memsize) >>> + /* We don't have pages above System RAM */ >>> + return FALSE; >>> + >>> return TRUE; >>> >>> no_page: >>> >>> I prefer the (1). What do you think ? >> >> Hi Suzuki, >> >> Hmmm -- with respect to (1), I suppose that would work, although >> given that both x86 and x86_64 pass through dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM() >> without printing the header in a non-existent-page case, I don't >> understand why ppc is different? > Yep, I digged into that a little, but not deep enough to debug it with > a dump. Nothing was evident from the code :(. Right -- I tried debugging it from the x86 and x86_64 perspective, and couldn't see why ppc would be different! ;-)