linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] [POWERPC] Make lmb support large physical addressing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:50:42 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Becky Bruce <bgill@...escale.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] [POWERPC] Make lmb support large physical
	addressing


On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 16:43 -0600, Becky Bruce wrote:
> Convert the lmb code to use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long for
> physical addresses and sizes.  This is needed to support large amounts
> of RAM on 32-bit systems that support 36-bit physical addressing.
> 
> Built/booted on mpc8641; build tested on pasemi and 44x.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <becky.bruce@...escale.com>
> ---
> Folks,
> 
> This has been sitting in my tree for a few days, and now it looks like
> David M. has submitted a patch that changes the lmb code to be shared
> between sparc and powerpc.  Sparc has no notion of a phys_addr_t.
> Should we just use u64 everywhere in this code instead?  Thoughts?

An option would be to use resource_size_t, though it's a bit yucky...

Dave, what do you prefer ?

Ben.


--
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/