[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218495200.8041.23.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:53:20 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ehabkost@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses
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.
--
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