On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 04:37, Yueyi Li <liyu...@live.com> wrote: > > OK, thanks. But seems this mail be ignored, do i need re-sent the patch? > > On 2018/12/26 21:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > 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. >
No it has been merged already. It is in v5.0-rc2 I think.