Re: clean way to support >32bit addr on 32bit CPU

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:30:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>>I don't think ioaddr_t needs to match resources. None of the IO accessor
>>functions take "u64"s anyway - and aren't likely to do so in the future
>>either - so "unsigned long" should be good enough.
>>Having u64 for resource handling is mainly an issue for RAM and
>>memory-mapped IO (right now the 32-bit limit means that we throw away
>>information about stuff above the 4GB mark from the e820 interfaces on
>>x86, for example - that _happens_ to work because we never see anything 
>>but RAM there anyway, but it means that /proc/iomem doesn't show all of 
>>the system RAM, and it does mean that our resource management doesn't 
>>actually handle 64-bit addresses correctly. 
>>See drivers/pci/probe.c for the result:
>>	"PCI: Unable to handle 64-bit address for device xxxx"
>>(and I do not actually think this has _ever_ happened in real life, which 
>>makes me suspect that Windows doesn't handle them either - but it 
>>inevitably will happen some day).
> 
> 
> I have a vague recollection of seeing a report of an ia32 device and/or
> machine with this property from John Fusco but am having a tough time
> searching the archives properly for it. I do recall it being around the
> time the remap_pfn_range() work was started, and I also claimed it as
> one of the motivators of it in one of my posts. I'm unaware of whether
> there are more general resources in John Fusco's situation.
> 
> My follow-ups began with:
> Message-ID: <20040924021735.GL9106@holomorphy.com>
> References: <41535AAE.6090700@yahoo.com>

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=109598180125156&w=2

-- 
~Randy