On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Tao Ma<tao.ma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:yes. the same box and the same linux version.
Amerigo Wang wrote:On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 03:21:23PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:Sorry for the delay.Tao Ma wrote:Yeah.Yinghai Lu wrote:so that value print out is right.Tao Ma wrote:Sorry fo my poor English, bug what do you mean?Amerigo Wang wrote:%lx should be used.On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 05:30:49PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:Sorry, I used the wrong printk. the correct one is:These two lines must be added by yourself...Please send the boot logs: dmesg -s 1000000 > fooattached.
#######high memory 18446612137615818752, size_t 18446612137615818752
#######kcore size 5301604352, PAGE_OFFSET 0, PAGE_SIZE 4096
What?!
How can PAGE_OFFSET be 0??
Can you show us these two printk() you just added?
And, the size of kcore is not the crazy number in the subject...
This one is much saner..
#######high memory 18446612137615818752, size_t 18446612137615818752
#######kcore size 5301604352, PAGE_OFFSET 18446612132314218496,
PAGE_SIZE 4096
also you compiler doesn't like
high_memory = (void *)__va(max_pfn * PAGE_SIZE - 1) + 1;
in setup.c?
I just printk in the setup.c and the result is
@@@@high_momory ffff88013c000000
Tao, can you reproduce the number mentioned in the subject??
But the result is the same
Yes?
Your printk() shows kcore size is: 5301604352, and in your subject it is
281474974617600...
Or they happened in the same time?