Re: memblock and bootmem problems if start + size = 4GB

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri Dec 30 2011 - 12:46:01 EST


On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I haven't said to replace phys_addr_t!
> My point was something like this (just as example on parisc and
> free_bootmem_node).
> The problematic part is kmemleak code which could be good reason not to
> change it.

I think it's still a bad idea and you haven't provided any
justification for it. Think about it - any user which uses pa() may
get that last page and if that user is using [start,end) range, it may
overflow. It doesn't even matter how you implement it. I just can't
understand why you obsess about that last page. It doesn't matter.
Just add those few lines to exclude the last single page and be done
with it. Unless you're gonna provide rationale for why adding such
risk and more complexity makes sense for that single last page which
most BIOSes wouldn't even map, I don't really think this thread is
going anywhere.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at