On 10/20/2025 2:25 PM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 01:26:40PM +0200, Mikhail Zaslonko wrote:
>
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Could you please clarify why these are not two separate commits?
You might be right. It makes sense splitting this commit in two.
>
>> - Update s390x_vr_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() to include a non-zero vmalloc_start
>> check, making it consistent with s390x_generic_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR().
>
> This one looks as a bug fix to me.
>
>> - Remove redundant vmalloc_start check from s390x_kvtop().
>
> And this one is a follow-up optimization, unless there was
> a reason for this check before commit d0164e7 ("s390x: uncouple
> physical and virtual memory spaces"). Do you have any ideas?
I don't see a reason for this check as soon as IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() comprises
this check for s390x. I think it could come from kvtop implementation for other
architectures indeed.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Zaslonko <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> s390x.c | 7 +------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks!
Thanks for taking a look!
--
Crash-utility mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://${domain_name}/admin/lists/devel.lists.crash-utility.osci.io/
Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki
