Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 May 2002 21:22:13 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: pfn-Functionset out of order for sparc64 in current Bk tree? |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
As long as CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM isn't used the replacement functions are quite simple.
> - pfn_to_page(pfn) is declared as (mem_map + (pfn)) for i386. Can this > apply to Sparc64 as well?
Yes.
> - 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.
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |