Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753865AbXECLd0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 07:33:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753873AbXECLd0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 07:33:26 -0400 Received: from nwd2mail11.analog.com ([137.71.25.57]:27369 "EHLO nwd2mail11.analog.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753865AbXECLdZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 07:33:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,485,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="28957236:sNHT23306290" From: Robin Getz Organization: Blackfin uClinux org To: "Greg Ungerer" Subject: Re: [PATCH]: linux-2.6.21-uc0 (MMU-less updates) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:35:36 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <46382055.8030203@snapgear.com> <200705030655.36957.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <4639C164.5070908@snapgear.com> In-Reply-To: <4639C164.5070908@snapgear.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705030735.36879.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2007 11:33:24.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC1D3EF0:01C78D76] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1644 Lines: 40 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 - 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/