From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <davem@davemloft.net>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216])
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7353DB6EF1
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu,  7 Jun 2012 02:03:11 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20120606.090308.608629832776499558.davem@davemloft.net>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix assmption of end_of_DRAM() returns end
 address
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1338960617.7150.163.camel@pasglop>
References: <20120605.152058.828742127223799137.davem@davemloft.net>
 <6A3DF150A5B70D4F9B66A25E3F7C888D03D68F08@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net>
 <1338960617.7150.163.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 R65777@freescale.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:30:17 +1000

> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 00:46 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> 
>> > >> memblock_end_of_DRAM() returns end_address + 1, not end address.
>> > >> While some code assumes that it returns end address.
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't we instead fix it the other way around ? IE, make
>> > > memblock_end_of_DRAM() does what the name implies, which is to
>> return
>> > > the last byte of DRAM, and fix the -other- callers not to make bad
>> > > assumptions ?
>> > 
>> > That was my impression too when I saw this patch.
>> 
>> Initially I also intended to do so. I initiated a email on linux-mm@
>> subject "memblock_end_of_DRAM()  return end address + 1" and the only
>> response I received from Andrea was:
>> 
>> "
>> It's normal that "end" means "first byte offset out of the range". End
>> = not ok.
>> end = start+size.
>> This is true for vm_end too. So it's better to keep it that way.
>> My suggestion is to just fix point 1 below and audit the rest :)
>> "
> 
> Oh well, I don't care enough to fight this battle in my current state so
> unless Dave has more stamina than I have today, I'm ok with the patch.

I'm definitely without the samina to fight something like this right now :)