From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755002AbYHKWyx (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:54:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752036AbYHKWyp (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:54:45 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:48803 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751800AbYHKWyp (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:54:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , ehabkost@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras In-Reply-To: <48A0C22D.2050400@goop.org> References: <489B6B40.5050705@goop.org> <20080807145648.ab3dfa90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <489B72C3.30603@goop.org> <20080807162741.8dfcd336.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <489B8908.2010007@goop.org> <20080807170617.79ca3ce7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <48A0954E.20400@goop.org> <1218491896.8041.9.camel@pasglop> <48A0B9EB.9020709@goop.org> <1218493925.8041.21.camel@pasglop> <48A0C22D.2050400@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:53:20 +1000 Message-Id: <1218495200.8041.23.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:50 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Are we sure resource_size_t is -never- used to represent memory ? I > > though it was on some platforms.... > > On x86 it's optionally used to put memory in the resource tree, but if > the memory is larger than can be held in resource_size_t it simply skips > it. Don't know about elsewhere. That sounds like a good enough reason to not separate the two concepts.. Ben.