Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031303AbXECNa7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:30:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031307AbXECNa7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:30:59 -0400 Received: from rex.snapgear.com ([203.143.235.140]:47789 "EHLO cyberguard.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031303AbXECNa6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4639E40D.6030809@snapgear.com> Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:30:53 +1000 From: Greg Ungerer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robin Getz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: linux-2.6.21-uc0 (MMU-less updates) References: <46382055.8030203@snapgear.com> <200705030655.36957.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <4639C164.5070908@snapgear.com> <200705030735.36879.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> In-Reply-To: <200705030735.36879.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2339 Lines: 59 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: gerg@snapgear.com 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 - 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/