linux-kernel - Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 03/22] 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]

Message-ID: <CAOS58YMuJQ823rrZFHXRdM3bakbzXKq5DWTSkYfYtdV5AZcONQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:08:13 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	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>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	mina86@...a86.com, Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, jweiner@...hat.com,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 03/22] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> No bigge, but why (1ULL << 32) - 1?  Shouldn't it be just 1ULL << 32?
>> memblock deals with [@start, @end) areas, right?
>
> that is for 32bit, when phys_addr_t is 32bit, in that case
> (1ULL<<32) cast to 32bit would be 0.

Right, it'd work the same even after overflowing but yeah, it can be confusing.

Thanks.

--
tejun
--
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/