On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 at 03:30, Yueyi Li <liyu...@live.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
>
> On 2018/12/24 17:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Does the following change fix your issue as well?
> >
> > index 9b432d9fcada..9dcf0ff75a11 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ void __init arm64_memblock_init(void)
> > * memory spans, randomize the linear region as well.
> > */
> > if (memstart_offset_seed > 0 && range >=
> > ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN) {
> > - range = range / ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN + 1;
> > + range /= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN;
> > memstart_addr -= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN *
> > ((range * memstart_offset_seed)
> > >> 16);
> > }
>
> Yes, it can fix this also. I just think modify the first *range*
> calculation would be easier to grasp, what do you think?
>
I don't think there is a difference, to be honest, but I will leave it
up to the maintainers to decide which approach they prefer.
