On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 06:41:50PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:22:14AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:55:01PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > [...] > > > INVALID_PHYS_ADDR is also confusing if we think of index into > > high-part of 64-bit address. A high-part is apparently valid. > > Btw, if this stands, then maybe we can consider drop patch 2, since > that patch did exactly the thing mentioned here... Thanks, Hmm.. that sounds about right. Andrew? > -- peterx
