Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:41:30 -0500
From: Terence Ripperda <tripperda@nvidia.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc2-mm1
Message-ID: <20040920174130.GA2142@hygelac>
Reply-To: Terence Ripperda <tripperda@nvidia.com>
References: <20040916024020.0c88586d.akpm@osdl.org> <200409161345.56131.norberto+linux-kernel@bensa.ath.cx> <1095354962.2698.22.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <200409161428.10717.norberto+linux-kernel@bensa.ath.cx> <20040916173022.GA6793@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200409171929.i8HJTq92024659@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409171929.i8HJTq92024659@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1042
Lines: 25

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:29:51PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> I admit not knowing the memory manager or the NVidia well enough to know what
> they *should* be doing instead.....

this is some ugly code. we're doing a lookup on a physical address to
see if this is memory we previously allocated and returning a kernel
pointer to the page.

the particular snippet in question (that uses MAXMEM) is an ugly attempt
to verify the address is a real physical address, before using __va()
on something like an i/o region. A better approach than comparing
MAXMEM would probably be to convert the address to a mapnr and compare
to max_mapnr.

I'll clean up this code and post a patch in the next couple of days.
in the meantime, the current patches out there should be good.

Thanks,
Terence

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/