Michael Holzheu wrote: > anderson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 08/14/2006 07:52:40 PM: > > > > > One thing that I noticed, and that I've added to your patch, is this: > > > > diff -r1.264 defs.h > > 2410c2410 > > < #define IS_VMALLOC_ADDR(X) (vt->vmalloc_start && (ulong)(X) >= > > vt->vmalloc_start) > > --- > > > #define IS_VMALLOC_ADDR(X) s390x_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR(X) > > > > It seems that s390x_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() was created but never > > put in place for IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() to use. > > > > Let me know if that's not correct. > > > > At least that is not wrong. But I noticed that we do not need > s390(x)_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() at all. > > In memory.c/vm_init(), we set vt->vmalloc_start to: > > vt->vmalloc_start = machdep->vmalloc_start(); > > which leads to a call of s390(x)_vmalloc_start(). > > Therefore, we can use that for IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() like other architectures > do. I attached a patch, which removes s390(x)_IS_VMALLOC_ADDR(). > > Michael > Ok fine -- all checked in... Thanks, Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
