Hi All,
An update of the uClinux (MMU-less) code against 2.6.21.
A lot of cleanups, and a few bug fixes.
Ahead is more changes to finalize platform device support
for the new style ColdFire serial driver, and switching to
the generic irq code.
http://www.uclinux.org/pub/uClinux/uClinux-2.6.x/linux-2.6.21-uc0.patch.gz
Change log:
. Arctururs UC5272 and UC5282 board support David Wu
. use THREAD_SIZE for stack manipulation Philippe De Muyter
. remove dead code from setup.c Greg Ungerer
. remove dead cache code from mm Greg Ungerer
. remove useless is_in_rom() Greg Ungerer
. consolidate fixed bootparam code Greg Ungerer
. no need to preserve THREAD_SR in resume Philippe De Muyter
. implement irq_regs in interrupt service Greg Ungerer
. remove machine specific irq code Greg Ungerer
. fix timer step count for ColdFire Philippe De Muyter
. add chip select mappings for cobra5329 Thomas Brinker
. remove old machine specific clock defines Greg Ungerer
. improve readability of fec driver code Philippe De Muyter
. do not read ICR before writing in fec driver Philippe De Muyter
. fix INIT_WORK usage in fec driver Greg Ungerer
. remove legacy PM code in 68328 serial driver Greg Ungerer
. fix errno reporting in binfmt_flat loader Philippe De Muyter
. create hw_irq.h for m68knommu Greg Ungerer
. fix CLOCK_TICK_RATE for m68knommu Philippe De Muyter
. add expand_stack() funtcion to nommu Greg Ungerer
. move to platform device setup for 520x Greg Ungerer
. move to platform device setup for 5249 Greg Ungerer
. new style serial driver for ColdFire UART Greg Ungerer
. add QSPI defines for 528x ColdFire parts David Wu
. improve SoC device defines for 523x ColdFire Thomas Brinker
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a division of Secure Computing PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
On Wed 2 May 2007 01:23, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> Hi All,
>
> An update of the uClinux (MMU-less) code against 2.6.21.
> A lot of cleanups, and a few bug fixes.
>
> Ahead is more changes to finalize platform device support
> for the new style ColdFire serial driver, and switching to
> the generic irq code.
>
> http://www.uclinux.org/pub/uClinux/uClinux-2.6.x/linux-2.6.21-uc0.patch.gz
Greg:
Is is possible to split out the m68k stuff from the generic nommu stuff? (or
maybe I am missing the point of this patch? - it is for review/inclusion into
the -mm tree, or just for end users wanting to use 2.6.21?)
The patch is labeled uClinux (MMU-less), which I read as generic, but the
majority has to do with only m68knommu.
arch/m68knommu/Kconfig | 12
arch/m68knommu/Makefile | 4
arch/m68knommu/kernel/process.c | 2
arch/m68knommu/kernel/setup.c | 116 +---
arch/m68knommu/kernel/time.c | 9
arch/m68knommu/mm/memory.c | 100 ---
arch/m68knommu/platform/5206/config.c | 8
arch/m68knommu/platform/5206e/config.c | 7
arch/m68knommu/platform/520x/config.c | 122 ++++
arch/m68knommu/platform/523x/config.c | 8
arch/m68knommu/platform/5249/config.c | 51 +
arch/m68knommu/platform/5272/config.c | 7
arch/m68knommu/platform/527x/config.c | 7
arch/m68knommu/platform/528x/config.c | 7
arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/config.c | 5
arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/entry.S | 20
arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/ints.c | 23
arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/timers.c | 10
arch/m68knommu/platform/532x/config.c | 46 +
arch/m68knommu/platform/5407/config.c | 7
arch/m68knommu/platform/68328/config.c | 3
arch/m68knommu/platform/68360/config.c | 2
arch/m68knommu/platform/68EZ328/config.c | 2
arch/m68knommu/platform/68VZ328/config.c | 7
include/asm-m68knommu/dma.h | 2
include/asm-m68knommu/hw_irq.h | 4
include/asm-m68knommu/m528xsim.h | 3
include/asm-m68knommu/m532xsim.h | 85 ++-
include/asm-m68knommu/machdep.h | 50 -
include/asm-m68knommu/mcfuart.h | 11
include/asm-m68knommu/pgtable.h | 7
include/asm-m68knommu/timex.h | 24
include/asm-m68knommu/uaccess.h | 11
drivers/net/fec.c | 71 +-
drivers/serial/68328serial.c | 59 --
drivers/serial/mcf.c | 826 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The only generic stuff is:
Makefile | 2
drivers/pci/pci.c | 2
fs/binfmt_flat.c | 2
fs/namei.c | 2
mm/nommu.c | 15
mm/page_alloc.c | 8
I looked at those, and had a question:
(copy and paste screws up the formatting, sorry):
> diff -Naur linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c
> --- linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:12:53.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:16:18.000000000 +1000
> @@ -120,12 +120,14 @@
> int retval;
> unsigned long len = PATH_MAX;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> if (!segment_eq(get_fs(), KERNEL_DS)) {
> if ((unsigned long) filename >= TASK_SIZE)
> return -EFAULT;
> if (TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename < PATH_MAX)
> len = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename;
> }
> +#endif
>
> retval = strncpy_from_user(page, filename, len);
> if (retval > 0) {
I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on noMMU?
Thanks
-Robin
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:23:33PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An update of the uClinux (MMU-less) code against 2.6.21.
> A lot of cleanups, and a few bug fixes.
Any chance you could split this into a few patches and send
upstream? m68knommu has gone quite badly out of sync once again.
Hi Christoph,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:23:33PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> An update of the uClinux (MMU-less) code against 2.6.21.
>> A lot of cleanups, and a few bug fixes.
>
> Any chance you could split this into a few patches and send
> upstream? m68knommu has gone quite badly out of sync once again.
Yes, I have already started the process. I have sent quite
a few of these to Linus in the last few hours.
Regards
Greg
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
Hi Robin,
Robin Getz wrote:
> On Wed 2 May 2007 01:23, Greg Ungerer pondered:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> An update of the uClinux (MMU-less) code against 2.6.21.
>> A lot of cleanups, and a few bug fixes.
>>
>> Ahead is more changes to finalize platform device support
>> for the new style ColdFire serial driver, and switching to
>> the generic irq code.
>>
>> http://www.uclinux.org/pub/uClinux/uClinux-2.6.x/linux-2.6.21-uc0.patch.gz
>
> Greg:
>
> Is is possible to split out the m68k stuff from the generic nommu stuff?
I could do that. Usually the actual mm changes have been
a pretty small set of this. Often only 1 or 2 patches.
> (or
> maybe I am missing the point of this patch? - it is for review/inclusion into
> the -mm tree, or just for end users wanting to use 2.6.21?)
This is specifically for review and inclusion in main line.
> The patch is labeled uClinux (MMU-less), which I read as generic, but the
> majority has to do with only m68knommu.
Well, if any non-mmu architecture people sent me patches that
made sense for me to push upstream I would include them here.
But that doesn't happen very often. They generally do it
themselves.
Historically the first -uc patches had m68knommu, h8300 and v850
as well as the non-mmu changes in it.
> arch/m68knommu/Kconfig | 12
> arch/m68knommu/Makefile | 4
> arch/m68knommu/kernel/process.c | 2
> arch/m68knommu/kernel/setup.c | 116 +---
> arch/m68knommu/kernel/time.c | 9
> arch/m68knommu/mm/memory.c | 100 ---
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5206/config.c | 8
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5206e/config.c | 7
> arch/m68knommu/platform/520x/config.c | 122 ++++
> arch/m68knommu/platform/523x/config.c | 8
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5249/config.c | 51 +
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5272/config.c | 7
> arch/m68knommu/platform/527x/config.c | 7
> arch/m68knommu/platform/528x/config.c | 7
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/config.c | 5
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/entry.S | 20
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/ints.c | 23
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5307/timers.c | 10
> arch/m68knommu/platform/532x/config.c | 46 +
> arch/m68knommu/platform/5407/config.c | 7
> arch/m68knommu/platform/68328/config.c | 3
> arch/m68knommu/platform/68360/config.c | 2
> arch/m68knommu/platform/68EZ328/config.c | 2
> arch/m68knommu/platform/68VZ328/config.c | 7
> include/asm-m68knommu/dma.h | 2
> include/asm-m68knommu/hw_irq.h | 4
> include/asm-m68knommu/m528xsim.h | 3
> include/asm-m68knommu/m532xsim.h | 85 ++-
> include/asm-m68knommu/machdep.h | 50 -
> include/asm-m68knommu/mcfuart.h | 11
> include/asm-m68knommu/pgtable.h | 7
> include/asm-m68knommu/timex.h | 24
> include/asm-m68knommu/uaccess.h | 11
> drivers/net/fec.c | 71 +-
> drivers/serial/68328serial.c | 59 --
> drivers/serial/mcf.c | 826 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The only generic stuff is:
>
> Makefile | 2
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 2
> fs/binfmt_flat.c | 2
> fs/namei.c | 2
> mm/nommu.c | 15
> mm/page_alloc.c | 8
>
> I looked at those, and had a question:
>
> (copy and paste screws up the formatting, sorry):
>
>> diff -Naur linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c
>> --- linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:12:53.000000000 +1000
>> +++ linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:16:18.000000000 +1000
>> @@ -120,12 +120,14 @@
>> int retval;
>> unsigned long len = PATH_MAX;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>> if (!segment_eq(get_fs(), KERNEL_DS)) {
>> if ((unsigned long) filename >= TASK_SIZE)
>> return -EFAULT;
>> if (TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename < PATH_MAX)
>> len = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename;
>> }
>> +#endif
>>
>> retval = strncpy_from_user(page, filename, len);
>> if (retval > 0) {
>
> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on noMMU?
The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
it shouldn't.
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Wed 2 May 2007 01:23, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> >> diff -Naur linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c
> >> --- linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:12:53.000000000 +1000
> >> +++ linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:16:18.000000000 +1000
> >> @@ -120,12 +120,14 @@
> >> int retval;
> >> unsigned long len = PATH_MAX;
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> >> if (!segment_eq(get_fs(), KERNEL_DS)) {
> >> if ((unsigned long) filename >= TASK_SIZE)
> >> return -EFAULT;
> >> if (TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename < PATH_MAX)
> >> len = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename;
> >> }
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> retval = strncpy_from_user(page, filename, len);
> >> if (retval > 0) {
> >
> > I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on
> > noMMU?
>
> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
> it shouldn't.
So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all noMMU
platforms?
-Robin
Robin Getz wrote:
> On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
>> Robin Getz wrote:
>>> On Wed 2 May 2007 01:23, Greg Ungerer pondered:
>>>> diff -Naur linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c
>>>> --- linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:12:53.000000000 +1000
>>>> +++ linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:16:18.000000000 +1000
>>>> @@ -120,12 +120,14 @@
>>>> int retval;
>>>> unsigned long len = PATH_MAX;
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>>> if (!segment_eq(get_fs(), KERNEL_DS)) {
>>>> if ((unsigned long) filename >= TASK_SIZE)
>>>> return -EFAULT;
>>>> if (TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename < PATH_MAX)
>>>> len = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename;
>>>> }
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> retval = strncpy_from_user(page, filename, len);
>>>> if (retval > 0) {
>>> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on
>>> noMMU?
>> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
>> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
>> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
>> it shouldn't.
>
> So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all noMMU
> platforms?
Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
So it can effect any non-MMU platform.
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
On Thu 3 May 2007 07:03, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> >> Robin Getz wrote:
> >>> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on
> >>> noMMU?
> >>
> >> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
> >> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
> >> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
> >> it shouldn't.
> >
> > So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all
> > noMMU platforms?
>
> Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
> has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
> So it can effect any non-MMU platform.
Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else forces it
to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
asm-blackfin/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (memory_end)
asm-frv/mem-layout.h:#define TASK_SIZE __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL)
asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000)
asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000UL)
asm-m68knommu/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
I'm happy to learn we are doing something wrong, but I think that we just
copied the arm/frv setup.
-Robin
Robin Getz wrote:
> On Thu 3 May 2007 07:03, Greg Ungerer pondered:
>> Robin Getz wrote:
>>> On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
>>>> Robin Getz wrote:
>>>>> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking on
>>>>> noMMU?
>>>> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
>>>> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
>>>> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
>>>> it shouldn't.
>>> So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all
>>> noMMU platforms?
>> Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
>> has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
>> So it can effect any non-MMU platform.
>
> Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else forces it
> to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
>
> asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
> asm-blackfin/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (memory_end)
> asm-frv/mem-layout.h:#define TASK_SIZE __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL)
>
> asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
> asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000)
> asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000UL)
> asm-m68knommu/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
Probably too:
asm-sh/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE 0x7c000000UL
which has some parts with MMU.
There have been others out of tree that have it like this to.
> I'm happy to learn we are doing something wrong, but I think that we just
> copied the arm/frv setup.
That is one way to handle it. Have you followed all the other
uses of TASK_SIZE and verified it is not a problem?
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
On Thu 3 May 2007 09:30, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Thu 3 May 2007 07:03, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> >> Robin Getz wrote:
> >>> On Wed 2 May 2007 07:32, Greg Ungerer pondered:
> >>>> Robin Getz wrote:
> >>>>> I was trying to understand why we don't want to do the same checking
> >>>>> on noMMU?
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is on systems that have RAM mapped at high physical
> >>>> addresses. TASK_SIZE may well be a numerically smaller number
> >>>> than the address range that RAM sits in. So this test fails when
> >>>> it shouldn't.
Put the patch back, since I added some new cc'
> diff -Naur linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c
> --- linux-2.6.21/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:12:53.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.21-uc0/fs/namei.c 2007-05-01 17:16:18.000000000 +1000
> @@ -120,12 +120,14 @@
> int retval;
> unsigned long len = PATH_MAX;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> if (!segment_eq(get_fs(), KERNEL_DS)) {
> if ((unsigned long) filename >= TASK_SIZE)
> return -EFAULT;
> if (TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename < PATH_MAX)
> len = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long) filename;
> }
> +#endif
>
> retval = strncpy_from_user(page, filename, len);
> if (retval > 0) {
> >>>
> >>> So, then this is a problem only on one or two architectures, not all
> >>> noMMU platforms?
> >>
> >> Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
> >> has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
> >> So it can effect any non-MMU platform.
> >
> > Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else
> > forces it to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
> >
> > asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
> > asm-blackfin/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (memory_end)
> > asm-frv/mem-layout.h:#define TASK_SIZE
> > __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL)
> >
> > asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
> > asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000)
> > asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000UL)
> > asm-m68knommu/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
>
> Probably too:
>
> asm-sh/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE 0x7c000000UL
>
> which has some parts with MMU.
>
> There have been others out of tree that have it like this to.
>
> > I'm happy to learn we are doing something wrong, but I think that we just
> > copied the arm/frv setup.
>
> That is one way to handle it. Have you followed all the other
> uses of TASK_SIZE and verified it is not a problem?
No, I assumed that Russell/David were smarter than we were, and that doing so
would not be a problem :)
Not looking at ./arch or ./include TASK_SIZE looks like it is only used in
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
fs/binfmt_elf.c
fs/namespace.c
fs/binfmt_aout.c
fs/namei.c
kernel/kexec.c
mm/mremap.c
mm/mempolicy.c
mm/memory.c
mm/nommu.c
mm/mmap.c
I poked through some, and from first glance, it mostly looked OK with setting
TASK_SIZE to CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE or memory_end.
-Robin
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:12:03PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
> > > Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else
> > > forces it to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
> > >
> > > asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
> >
> > That is one way to handle it. Have you followed all the other
> > uses of TASK_SIZE and verified it is not a problem?
>
> No, I assumed that Russell/David were smarter than we were, and that doing so
> would not be a problem :)
Don't look at me - the above came from Hyok, and I just assumed that it
was correct without really understanding it.
I've noticed though that Hyok's gone rather quiet, so I'm not sure
whether we'll ever get ARM uclinux integration complete.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:30:53PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> >>Its not an architecture problem. It can effect any board that
> >>has RAM mapped at a large numerical addresses (larger than TASK_SIZE).
> >>So it can effect any non-MMU platform.
> >
> >Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else forces
> >it to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
> >
> >asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
> >asm-blackfin/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (memory_end)
> >asm-frv/mem-layout.h:#define TASK_SIZE __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL)
> >
> >asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
> >asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000)
> >asm-m68k/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0x0E000000UL)
> >asm-m68knommu/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE (0xF0000000UL)
>
> Probably too:
>
> asm-sh/processor.h:#define TASK_SIZE 0x7c000000UL
>
> which has some parts with MMU.
>
> There have been others out of tree that have it like this to.
>
It would be at 0x80000000UL on SH if it weren't for address space area
limitations. The 0x7c000000 - 0x7fffffff space is used for shadowing P4
registers in the virtual address space (area 7) with the MMU and it's a
reserved area without the MMU, so TASK_SIZE is trimmed right before this.
However, I'm not sure that the patch Greg has in this set is sufficient
for the problem described. do_mmap_pgoff() won't allow a > TASK_SIZE
mapping anyways. In the SH case we certainly have address spaces that
can be given user permissions well above TASK_SIZE, area 7 space is used
as a bit of a hack for some of this in the MMU case..
Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:12:03PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
>>>> Depending on how TASK_SIZE is defined - it looks like everyone else
>>>> forces it to end of memory, except 68k[nommu].
>>>>
>>>> asm-arm/memory.h:#define TASK_SIZE (CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE)
>>> That is one way to handle it. Have you followed all the other
>>> uses of TASK_SIZE and verified it is not a problem?
>> No, I assumed that Russell/David were smarter than we were, and that doing so
>> would not be a problem :)
>
> Don't look at me - the above came from Hyok, and I just assumed that it
> was correct without really understanding it.
>
> I've noticed though that Hyok's gone rather quiet, so I'm not sure
> whether we'll ever get ARM uclinux integration complete.
We can do this without Hyok.
The patches I sent to arm-linux-kernel last week fill all the gaps
that I see. I'll be reworking that over the coming weeks to try and
get something that is acceptable to all, so we can get this done.
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com