linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:39:58 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ehabkost@...hat.com,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses


 .../...

> diff --git a/include/asm-x86/page_32.h b/include/asm-x86/page_32.h
> --- a/include/asm-x86/page_32.h
> +++ b/include/asm-x86/page_32.h
> @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@
>  typedef u64	pudval_t;
>  typedef u64	pgdval_t;
>  typedef u64	pgprotval_t;
> -typedef u64	phys_addr_t;
 
 .../...

Might sound a stupid question, but why have a CONFIG_ option and
a global definition based on it rather than each arch defining it
as part of the base types ? I don't have a firm preference for one
or the other at this point, I can see pro and cons to both approach,
so I'm curious to see what others think about it.

Cheers,
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/