[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| 
| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  | 
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080116145427.GA640@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:54:27 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 4] x86: some more patches
* Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> >  #define PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK	(PAGE_MASK & __PHYSICAL_MASK)
> 
> 
> I haven't tested yet, but we looked at that one earlier and I thought 
> it was ok because
> 
> #define __PHYSICAL_MASK          _AT(phys_addr_t, (_AC(1,ULL) << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1)
> 
> and 
> 
> typedef u64     phys_addr_t;
> 
> for PAE. So the expression above should have been already 64bit.
no. The problem is that PAGE_MASK is:
  #define PAGE_MASK        (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
  #define PAGE_SIZE        (_AC(1,UL) << PAGE_SHIFT)
that's u32 on PAE, and __PHYSICAL_MASK is u64. So PAGE_MASK gets 
zero-extended to u64. So the combined mask:
  #define PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK      (PAGE_MASK & __PHYSICAL_MASK)
has the high bits chopped off. Please try my patch.
(PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK is broken too in the same way, i just fixed that in 
my tree - but it's not used by anything on 32-bit PAE but by PAGE_MASK)
> So I would be surprised if the patch works.
try it ...
	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
