Re: [PATCH 0/3] Globally defining phys_addr_t
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Sep 11 2008 - 06:21:27 EST
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:53:11 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > This is a repost of a little 3-patch series which Andrew has been
> > carrying in -mm. It cleans up the definition of phys_addr_t to make
> > it kernel-wide rather than x86-specific, and fixes up PFN_PHYS() to
> > use it to avoid address truncation.
> >
> > We currently have a few workarounds for this problem in the tree, but
> > Alex found another bug caused by PFN_PHYS(), so it's probably better
> > if you bring these patches into tip.git for now.
> >
> > PowerPC also defines a phys_addr_t with the same meaning as x86; the
> > powerpc arch maintainers are happy with these patches.
>
> Andrew, are you fine with that approach too?
spose so. These patches are the same as those in -mm (I checked).
Still seems a bit odd to me that we're disallowing things like 32-bit
reosurces on >4G-memory-span machines. A resource_size_t is a
different (and narrower) concept from a physical address.
> Also, i dont see Andrew's signoffs in the patches, and that's the true
> path of these patches which should be preserved: you => -mm => -tip.
Not really. These went
JF -> mm
and
JF -> you
but whatever.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/