[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1007261136160.5438@router.home>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:40:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v4
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
> This patch registers address of mem_section to memmap itself's page struct's
> pg->private field. This means the page is used for memmap of the section.
> Otherwise, the page is used for other purpose and memmap has a hole.
What if page->private just happens to be the value of the page struct?
Even if that is not possible today, someday someone may add new
functionality to the kernel where page->pivage == page is used for some
reason.
Checking for PG_reserved wont work?
> +void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
> +static inline int memmap_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> +{
> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> + struct page *__pg = virt_to_page(page);
> + return page_private(__pg) == (unsigned long)__pg;
Hmmm.. hmmm....
--
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