lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/13] memblock, x86: Replace memblock_x86_reserve/free_range() with generic ones
    On 07/12/2011 02:16 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > --- a/mm/memblock.c
    > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
    > @@ -449,6 +449,9 @@ long __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
    >
    > long __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
    > {
    > + memblock_dbg(" memblock_free: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
    > + base, base + size, (void *)_RET_IP_);
    > +
    > return __memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
    > }
    >
    > @@ -456,6 +459,8 @@ long __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
    > {
    > struct memblock_type *_rgn = &memblock.reserved;
    >
    > + memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
    > + base, base + size, (void *)_RET_IP_);
    > BUG_ON(0 == size);
    >
    > return memblock_add_region(_rgn, base, size);

    This assumes phys_addr_t == unsigned long long, which is just plain
    wrong. I will fix it up, but please take more care with that in the
    future. This triggers a warning when building for i386 non-PAE, which
    is a good thing because it is a real error.

    Also, don't we usually display resources as an *inclusive* range,
    meaning that the last one should be base + size - 1?

    -hpa


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-14 22:13    [W:0.020 / U:30.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site