Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757138Ab2FFQDL (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:03:11 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:36744 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756786Ab2FFQDJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:03:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20120606.090308.608629832776499558.davem@davemloft.net> To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: R65777@freescale.com, aarcange@redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, galak@kernel.crashing.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix assmption of end_of_DRAM() returns end address From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1338960617.7150.163.camel@pasglop> References: <20120605.152058.828742127223799137.davem@davemloft.net> <6A3DF150A5B70D4F9B66A25E3F7C888D03D68F08@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1338960617.7150.163.camel@pasglop> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 23.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1528 Lines: 37 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:30:17 +1000 > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 00:46 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> > >> memblock_end_of_DRAM() returns end_address + 1, not end address. >> > >> While some code assumes that it returns end address. >> > > >> > > Shouldn't we instead fix it the other way around ? IE, make >> > > memblock_end_of_DRAM() does what the name implies, which is to >> return >> > > the last byte of DRAM, and fix the -other- callers not to make bad >> > > assumptions ? >> > >> > That was my impression too when I saw this patch. >> >> Initially I also intended to do so. I initiated a email on linux-mm@ >> subject "memblock_end_of_DRAM() return end address + 1" and the only >> response I received from Andrea was: >> >> " >> It's normal that "end" means "first byte offset out of the range". End >> = not ok. >> end = start+size. >> This is true for vm_end too. So it's better to keep it that way. >> My suggestion is to just fix point 1 below and audit the rest :) >> " > > Oh well, I don't care enough to fight this battle in my current state so > unless Dave has more stamina than I have today, I'm ok with the patch. I'm definitely without the samina to fight something like this right now :) -- 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/