linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:27:28 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>>               base -= dev_priv->mm.gtt->stolen_size;
>>>>       } else {
>>>>               /* Stolen is immediately above Top of Memory */
>>>> -             base = max_low_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> +             base = __REMOVED_CRAZY__ << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> Whole function:
>
> Yeah, but can't we still just do 1LLU << 32 like other places? Or at
> least explain what was there before? It's gonna confuse the hell out
> of future readers of the code.

They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.

Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/