[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A0C519.6070708@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:02:49 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.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
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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..
The resource_size_t situation is obscure. I'd be happy to just remove
its config, use my patch and typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t.
J
--
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