On 2016/12/16 20:35, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:10:05PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2016/12/14 22:19, zhongjiang wrote: >>> From: zhong jiang <[email protected]> >>> >>> when HUGETLB_PAGE is disable, WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE contains the >>> fuctions should not be use. therefore, we add the dependency. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 969ef88..694ca73 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -640,6 +640,7 @@ config SYS_SUPPORTS_HUGETLBFS >>> >>> config ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE >>> def_bool y if ARM64_4K_PAGES || (ARM64_16K_PAGES && !ARM64_VA_BITS_36) >>> + depends on HUGETLB_PAGE >>> >>> config ARCH_HAS_CACHE_LINE_SIZE >>> def_bool y >> Hi, >> I still think it is a issue. Perhaps above changelog is unclear. >> Further explain is as follows. >> when hugetlb_pages is disable and arch_want_huge_pmd_share is enable, we >> maybe call >> huge_pmd_sahre in hugetlbpage.c, but the function actually is not >> definition as it is not >> exported. is it right ?? > The only users of ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE on arm64 are: > > arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c: if > (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE) && > mm/hugetlb.c:#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE > mm/hugetlb.c:#else /* !CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE */ > mm/hugetlb.c:#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE */ > > and neither of those files are compiled if !HUGETLB_PAGE. > > Are you actually seeing a problem here? > > Will > > . > I got it. Please forget the stupid patch and my stupid comments. but the first patch look reasonable. Is it accepted ?
Thanks zhongjiang
