On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:31 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > > Mysteriously, I haven't receive original post. > So now I'm guessing you acked following patch. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/14/393 > > but I don't think it is correct. > > > - check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE, &nmask, > > + check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE_MAX, &nmask, > > flags | MPOL_MF_DISCONTIG_OK, &pagelist); > > Because TASK_SIZE_MAX is defined on x86 only. Why can we ignore other platform? > Please put following line anywhere. > > #define TASK_SIZE_MAX TASK_SIZE I just send out patch v2, which uses mm->task_size rather than TASK_SIZE_MAX. Some non-x86 architectures do not define TASK_SIZE_MAX, but do make TASK_SIZE depend on the current task. So I feel it would be better to refer to the mm struct to obtain the needed address space limit information rather than TASK_SIZE[_MAX], which can depend on current. -- Greg -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href