[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51156507.50900@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:50:15 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, bp@...en8.de,
mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add helper for highmem checks
On 02/08/2013 12:28 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> #endif
> diff -puN include/linux/mm.h~clean-up-highmem-checks include/linux/mm.h
> --- linux-2.6.git/include/linux/mm.h~clean-up-highmem-checks 2013-02-08 08:42:37.295222148 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/mm.h 2013-02-08 09:01:49.758254468 -0800
> @@ -1771,5 +1771,18 @@ static inline unsigned int debug_guardpa
> static inline bool page_is_guard(struct page *page) { return false; }
> #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC */
>
> +static inline phys_addr_t last_lowmem_phys_addr(void)
> +{
> + /*
> + * 'high_memory' is not a pointer that can be dereferenced, so
> + * avoid calling __pa() on it directly.
> + */
> + return __pa(high_memory - 1);
> +}
> +static inline bool phys_addr_is_highmem(phys_addr_t addr)
> +{
> + return addr > last_lowmem_paddr();
> +}
> +
Are we sure that high_memory - 1 is always a valid reference? Consider
especially the case where there is MMIO beyond end of memory on a system
which has less RAM than the HIGHMEM boundary...
-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