Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: simplify calculation of max_pfn_mapped

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 5/3/26 06:04, Brendan Jackman wrote:
...
> Luckily, init_memory_mapping() avoids all these conditions. In that
> case, the return value is just paddr_end. And that value is already
> present, no need to depend on the confusing return value.

It feels like we should say something about split_mem_range() here. All
of the guaranteed non-fiddly behavior originates in there, right?

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> index ae3e9e0820153..1a6a6fc700bb5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> @@ -544,10 +544,11 @@ void __ref init_memory_mapping(unsigned long start,
>  	memset(mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
>  	nr_range = split_mem_range(mr, 0, start, end);
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++)
> -		paddr_last = kernel_physical_mapping_init(mr[i].start, mr[i].end,
> -							  mr[i].page_size_mask,
> -							  prot);
> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++) {
> +		kernel_physical_mapping_init(mr[i].start, mr[i].end,
> +					     mr[i].page_size_mask, prot);
> +		paddr_last = mr[i].end;
> +	}

I guess this is actually:

	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++)
		kernel_physical_mapping_init(...);

	paddr_last = mr[nr_range-1].end;

Right? But what you have is probably just as compact.