Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> writes:
> Le 23/06/2022 à 14:29, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>> Instead of high_memory use VMALLOC_START to validate that the address is
>> not in the vmalloc range.
>>
>> Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.w...@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>> index e5f75c70eda8..256cad69e42e 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline bool pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
>>
>> #define virt_addr_valid(vaddr) ({
>> \
>> unsigned long _addr = (unsigned long)vaddr; \
>> - _addr >= PAGE_OFFSET && _addr < (unsigned long)high_memory && \
>> + _addr >= PAGE_OFFSET && _addr < (unsigned long)VMALLOC_START && \
>> pfn_valid(virt_to_pfn(_addr)); \
>> })
>>
>
> What about booke/64 ?
>
> The test will be _addr >= 0xc000000000000000 && _addr <
> 0x8000000000000000 so the test will be always false.
>
Ok, I didn't realize that booke/64 have vmalloc range below direct map.
I guess we should drop patch 3.
-aneesh
