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

[David Miller]

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/