linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51CD4125.5060305@linutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:54:13 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
CC:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Aurelien Jacquiot <a-jacquiot@...com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	arm@...nel.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Specify initrd location using 64-bit

On 06/27/2013 10:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

>> Rob,
>> Are you ok with phys_addr_t since your concern was about rest
>> of the memory specific bits of the device-tree code use u64 ?
> 
> No. I still think it should be u64 for same reasons I said originally.

The physical address space is represented by phys_addr_t and not u64
within the kernel. If you go for u64 you may waste 32bit and you need
to check if the running kernel can deal with this.
Why was u64 such a good thing?

> Rob

Sebastian
--
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/