[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH]: linux-2.6.21-uc0 (MMU-less updates)
On Thu 3 May 2007 07:03, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> >> Robin Getz wrote:
> >>> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on
> >>> noMMU?
> >>
> >> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
> >> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
> >> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
> >> it shouldn't.
> >
> > So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all
> > noMMU platforms?
> Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
> has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
> So it can effect any non-MMU platform.

Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else forces it
to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].

asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
asm-blackfin/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (memory_end)
asm-frv/mem-layout.h:#define TASK_SIZE __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL)

asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000)
asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000UL)
asm-m68knommu/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)

I'm happy to learn we are doing something wrong, but I think that we just
copied the arm/frv setup.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-03 13:35    [W:0.037 / U:33.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site