Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 May 2002 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: pfn-Functionset out of order for sparc64 in current Bk tree? | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 21:22:13 +0200 (CEST)
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> - pte_pfn(x) is declared as > ((unsigned long)(((x).pte_low >> PAGE_SHIFT))) > in 2-level pgtable, > (((x).pte_low >> PAGE_SHIFT) | ((x).pte_high << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT))) > in 3-level. I suppose 2-level shouldn't exactly match here, how far > must the 3-level version be changed in order to fit sparc64? A lot? #define pte_pfn(x) (pte_val(x) >> PAGE_SHIFT) > - pfn_valid(pfn) is described as ((pfn) < max_mapnr). Suppose this is OK > on Sparc64 either? Yes. > - pfn_pte(page,prot) is defined as > __pte(((pfn) << PAGE_SHIFT) | pgprot_val(prot)) > How far does this go for Sparc64? #define pfn_pte(pfn,prot) mk_pte_phys(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, prot) but you should better replace mk_pte_phys completely.
All of this is ignoring the fact that phys_base has to be subtracted from any physical address before applying as an index to mem_map on sparc64.
I have the correct fixes for sparc64 in my tree and I'll merge it all to Linus. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |