Re: [PATCH 0/3] Globally defining phys_addr_t

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
>   

I don't mind much either way.  I added that patch on suggestion from
BenH, and don't really mind if it gets dropped.  The first two are the
really important ones.

>> 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.
>   

Yes, I just resent the same patches.  But getting the ones blessed with
-mm pee would be the best.

    J