![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> which seems to be the "PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn))" test. >> >> This implies that you have either: >> - a buggy "pfn_valid()" macro (do you use CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM?)> > Yup.># define pfn_valid(pfn) ((pfn) < num_physpages) > > Which is wrong. There's a even a comment above it that says: > > /* > * pfn_valid should be made as fast as possible, and the current definition > * is valid for machines that are NUMA, but still contiguous, which is what > * is currently supported. A more generalised, but slower definition would > * be something like this - mbligh: > * ( pfn_to_pgdat(pfn) && ((pfn) < node_end_pfn(pfn_to_nid(pfn))) ) > */ > > ;-) > > Which I still don't think is correct, as there's a hole in the middle of > node 0 ... I'll make a new patch up somehow and give to Keith to test ;-) Oh hell ... I remember what's wrong with this whole bit. pfn_valid is used inconsistently in different places, IIRC. Linus / Andrew ... what do you actually want it to mean? Some things seem to use it to say "the memory here is valid accessible RAM", some things "there is a valid struct page for this pfn". I was aiming for the latter, but a few other arches seemed to disagree. Could I get a ruling on this? ;-) Thanks, M. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00 [W:0.479 / U:0.410 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||