Re: [PATCH 0/3] Globally defining phys_addr_t

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:53:11 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ingo,
> > 
> > This is a repost of a little 3-patch series which Andrew has been 
> > carrying in -mm.  It cleans up the definition of phys_addr_t to make 
> > it kernel-wide rather than x86-specific, and fixes up PFN_PHYS() to 
> > use it to avoid address truncation.
> > 
> > We currently have a few workarounds for this problem in the tree, but 
> > Alex found another bug caused by PFN_PHYS(), so it's probably better 
> > if you bring these patches into tip.git for now.
> > 
> > PowerPC also defines a phys_addr_t with the same meaning as x86; the 
> > powerpc arch maintainers are happy with these patches.
> 
> Andrew, are you fine with that approach too?

spose so.  These patches are the same as those in -mm (I checked).

Still seems a bit odd to me that we're disallowing things like 32-bit
reosurces on >4G-memory-span machines.  A resource_size_t is a
different (and narrower) concept from a physical address.

> Also, i dont see Andrew's signoffs in the patches, and that's the true 
> path of these patches which should be preserved: you => -mm => -tip.

Not really.  These went

JF -> mm

and

JF -> you

but whatever.