Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:20:42 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 13/13] memblock, x86: Replace memblock_x86_reserve/free_range() with generic ones | From | Tejun Heo <> |
| |
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 07/12/2011 02:16 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> + memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n", >> + base, base + size, (void *)_RET_IP_); >> BUG_ON(0 == size); >> >> return memblock_add_region(_rgn, base, size); > > This assumes phys_addr_t == unsigned long long, which is just plain > wrong. I will fix it up, but please take more care with that in the > future. This triggers a warning when building for i386 non-PAE, which > is a good thing because it is a real error.
Oh, right, I got confused w/ u64.
> Also, don't we usually display resources as an *inclusive* range, > meaning that the last one should be base + size - 1?
Hmm... looking at the boot log, not really. [ ) ranges are more common. memblock code is one of notable exceptions and I actually was thinking about converting it. [ ) ranges are easier to recognize and most of code we have can't deal with the full range (and it shouldn't need to - chopping off one top and bottom is much saner approach anyway).
Thanks.
-- tejun -- 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/
| |