@@ -273,11 +273,8 @@ int htab_remove_mapping(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
shift = mmu_psize_defs[psize].shift;
step = 1 << shift;
- if (!ppc_md.hpte_removebolted) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING "Platform doesn't implement "
- "hpte_removebolted\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
+ if (!ppc_md.hpte_removebolted)
+ return -ENODEV;
for (vaddr = vstart; vaddr < vend; vaddr += step)
ppc_md.hpte_removebolted(vaddr, psize, ssize);
@@ -641,8 +638,10 @@ int create_section_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
int remove_section_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
- return htab_remove_mapping(start, end, mmu_linear_psize,
- mmu_kernel_ssize);
+ int rc = htab_remove_mapping(start, end, mmu_linear_psize,
+ mmu_kernel_ssize);
+ WARN_ON(rc < 0);
+ return rc;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
Currently, the only error that htab_remove_mapping() can report is -EINVAL, if removal of bolted HPTEs isn't implemeted for this platform. We make a few clean ups to the handling of this: * EINVAL isn't really the right code - there's nothing wrong with the function's arguments - use ENODEV instead * We were also printing a warning message, but that's a decision better left up to the callers, so remove it * One caller is vmemmap_remove_mapping(), which will just BUG_ON() on error, making the warning message redundant, so no change is needed there. * The other caller is remove_section_mapping(). This is called in the memory hot remove path at a point after vmemmap_remove_mapping() so if hpte_removebolted isn't implemented, we'd expect to have already BUG()ed anyway. Put a WARN_ON() here, in lieu of a printk() since this really shouldn't be happening. Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> --- arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)