Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix assmption of end_of_DRAM() returns endaddress

[Andrea Arcangeli]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:30:17PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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

I wish you to get well soon Ben!

> unless Dave has more stamina than I have today, I'm ok with the patch.

Well it doesn't really matter in the end what is decided as long as
something is decided :). I was asked through a forward so I only
expressed my preference...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/