[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:13:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@...il.com>
CC: Frantisek Hrbata <fhrbata@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, kamaleshb@...ibm.com, hechjie@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add phys addr validity check for /dev/mem mmap
On 04/03/2013 06:11 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> Why we consider boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits instead of e820 map here?
>
Because x86_phys_bits is what controls how much address space the
processor has. e820 tells us how much *RAM* the machine has, or
specifically, how much RAM the machine had on boot.
-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