>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:43:19 -0700, "Tolentino, Matthew E" <matthew.e.tolentino@intel.com> said:
>> Does ACPI really guarantee that the table is never stored at physical
>> address 0? If not, then leaving it as a virtual address might be
>> safer. (Yes, I know it's very unlikely for today's system, but at
>> least on ia64, pfn 0 is normal RAM so it seems at least in principle
>> possible to store the ACPI table there).
Matthew> No guarantee that I could find...I suppose this is
Matthew> technically possible. :) However, considering the ACPI
Matthew> routines expect a physical address and thus immediately map
Matthew> it to get the descriptor (either directly with virt_to_phys
Matthew> or via ioremap), this seems redundant. Given the mapping
Matthew> scheme employed, is this still risky? I'd like to reuse
Matthew> the same code path for ia32, but don't want to break ia64.
Note that I'm only pointing this out because I thought there were some
NULL-pointer checks. If it's a physical address, 0 is a valid
address. If it's an (identity-mapped) kernel address, NULL-pointer
checks are OK.
--david
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:30 EST