Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm/sparse: remove SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 9/21/26 18:48, Seongjun Hong wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I'm sorry for the delayed response.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 05:11:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems a bit strage given the code is:
>>>
>>>         try:
>>>             self.SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP = 1 << int(gdb.parse_and_eval('SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP_BIT'))
>>>             self.SECTION_IS_EARLY = 1 << int(gdb.parse_and_eval('SECTION_IS_EARLY_BIT'))
>>>         except:
>>>             self.SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP = 1 << 0
>>>             self.SECTION_IS_EARLY = 1 << 2
>>>
>>> Whereas other variables must be available with no try, e.g.:
>>>
>>>         self.PAGE_OFFSET = int(gdb.parse_and_eval("page_offset_base"))
>>>         self.VMEMMAP_START = int(gdb.parse_and_eval("vmemmap_base"))
>>>         self.PHYS_BASE = int(gdb.parse_and_eval("(unsigned long) phys_base"))
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Is there some weirdness with gdb? Or is it maybe because there are some configs
>>> without these symbols maybe?
>>
>> TBH, I have absolutely no idea and I was asking myself the same thing (but
>> decided that I couldn't care less about a python gdb script).
>>
>> This code was added in February:
>>
>> commit 55f8b4518d14b7436f70defe27faba4eca0cd4e1
>> Author: Seongjun Hong <hsj0512@snu.ac.kr>
>> Date:   Mon Feb 2 12:42:41 2026 +0900
>>
>>     scripts/gdb: implement x86_page_ops in mm.py
>>
>>     Implement all member functions of x86_page_ops strictly following the
>>     logic of aarch64_page_ops.
>>
>>     This includes full support for SPARSEMEM and standard page translation
>>     functions.
>>
>>     This fixes compatibility with 'lx-' commands on x86_64, preventing
>>     AttributeErrors when using lx-pfn_to_page and others.
>>
>> @Seongjun, why are these conditional and the others not? Trying to support older
>> kernels?
> 
> No. TBH I didn't look at the gdb script carefully at that time and just 
> wanted to avoid a symbol lookup failure. 
> 
> It would be better if we remove the try statement.

Will do, thanks! :)

-- 
Cheers,

David