-static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
+static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
{
vmi_check_page_type(__pa(ptep) >> PAGE_SHIFT, VMI_PAGE_PTE);
vmi_ops.set_pte(pte, ptep, vmi_flags_addr_defer(mm, addr, VMI_PAGE_PT, 1));
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void vmi_set_pud(pud_t *pudp, pud
vmi_ops.set_pte(pte, (pte_t *)pudp, VMI_PAGE_PDP);
}
-static void vmi_pte_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
+static void vmi_pte_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep)
{
const pte_t pte = { 0 };
vmi_check_page_type(__pa(ptep) >> PAGE_SHIFT, VMI_PAGE_PTE);
--
Subject? description?
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> -static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
> +static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
And what good is that change anyways? unsigned long is the usual style
for addresses.
-Andi
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Subject? description?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> -static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
>> +static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
>>
>
> And what good is that change anyways? unsigned long is the usual style
> for addresses.
There was a fair amount of inconsistency. In this case, u32 was being
used for existing functions dealing with addresses, and I propagated it
through. I can switch it all back to unsigned long if you'd prefer.
J