[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A496DF4.7020203@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:44:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG 2.6.31-rc1] HIGHMEM64G causes hang in PCI init on 32-bit
x86
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ...
> end = round_up(start, ram_alignment(start)) - 1;
> if (end > MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE)
> end = MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE;
> if (start > end)
> continue;
>
> Because otherwise we'll just be ignoring resources that cross the resource
> size boundary, which sounds wrong.
>
> We _could_ have a RAM resource that crosses the 4GB boundary, after all.
>
We could, but the *alignment pad* shouldn't be able to cross a
power-of-two boundary ("end" is always an aligned-up version of "start").
> That said, I have to admit that I'm getting tired of these bugs that only
> happen when we have a 32-bit resource_size_t. So I can understand the
> attraction to just forcing it to 64-bit and forgetting about these
> irritating issues.
Probably would be worth figuring out just how much it would be.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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