Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:35:26 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | [PATCH] Re: news about IDE PIO HIGHMEM bug (was: Re: 2.6.9-mm1) |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: > To repeat what I said in IRC ... ;-) > > Actually, you could check this with the pfns being the same when >> MAX_ORDER-1. > We should be aligned on a MAX_ORDER boundary, I think. > > However, pfn_to_page(page_to_pfn(page) + 1) might be safer. If rather slower.
Is this patch acceptable to everyone? Andrew?
It uses the publicly-exported pfn_to_page/page_to_pfn abstraction, which seems to be the only way to accomplish what we want to do in IDE/libata.
Jeff
===== include/linux/mm.h 1.193 vs edited ===== --- 1.193/include/linux/mm.h 2004-10-20 04:37:06 -04:00 +++ edited/include/linux/mm.h 2004-10-27 12:33:28 -04:00 @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ #define MM_VM_SIZE(mm) TASK_SIZE #endif +#define nth_page(page,n) pfn_to_page(page_to_pfn((page)) + n) + /* * Linux kernel virtual memory manager primitives. * The idea being to have a "virtual" mm in the same way | |