lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling
    (2010/06/17 11:50), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:06AM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
    >> Index: linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
    >> ===================================================================
    >> --- linux-2.6.34.orig/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 04:43:00.978332015 +0900
    >> +++ linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 05:32:59.291693007 +0900
    >> @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@
    >> static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
    >> unsigned long size, unsigned long prot_val, void *caller)
    >> {
    >> - unsigned long pfn, offset, vaddr;
    >> - resource_size_t last_addr;
    >> + unsigned long offset, vaddr;
    >> + resource_size_t pfn, last_pfn, last_addr;
    >
    > I have a hard time understanding this change. pfn is always a physical
    > address shifted by PAGE_SHIFT. So a 32-bit pfn supports up to 44-bit
    > physical addresses. Are your addresses above 44-bits?
    >
    >> @@ -115,7 +113,7 @@
    >> * Mappings have to be page-aligned
    >> */
    >> offset = phys_addr& ~PAGE_MASK;
    >> - phys_addr&= PAGE_MASK;
    >> + phys_addr = (phys_addr>> PAGE_SHIFT)<< PAGE_SHIFT;
    >
    > I'd rather see PAGE_MASK fixed. Would this work?
    >
    > #define PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1,UL)<< PAGE_SHIFT)
    > -#define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
    > +#define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE-1ULL))
    >

    I think it should work. But I'm worrying about regressions.
    Now I think using PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK (as my v.1 patch did) is good idea
    again. What do you think about this?

    Thanks,
    Kenji Kaneshige



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-17 08:31    [W:0.030 / U:121.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site