Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:33:24 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: Does io_remap_page_range() take 5 or 6 args? |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0700 >> Given this, will a pfn suffice?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:16:58PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > There is an error in the calculations. 16TB "RAM", means "RAM". > On many systems, a large chunk of the physical address space is > taken up by I/O areas, not real memory. > Such areas do not take up mem_map[] array space. > Regardless, I think an "unsigned long" page frame number is sufficient > for now. Don't even make the new type.
Oh, virtualspace footprint of IO areas is far worse, as the convention is to direct map them into a single address space if they're ever used. Of course this convention is much more loosely established than e.g. struct page is for RAM. Some analogue of kmap_atomic() for such machines to multiplex virtualspace in interrupt context would help, but is unrelated to physical address passing issues.
-- wli - 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/
| |