Hello, Michal. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > I have reached some problems with memblock and bootmem code for some configurations. > We can completely setup the whole system and all addresses in it. > The problem happens if we place main memory to the end of address space when > mem_start + size reach 4GB limit. > > For example: > mem_start 0xF000 0000 > mem_size 0x1000 0000 (or better lowmem size) > mem_end 0xFFFF FFFF > start + size 0x1 0000 0000 (u32 limit reached). > > I have done some patches which completely remove start + size values from architecture specific > code but I have found some problem in generic code too. > > For example in bootmem code where are three places where physaddr + size is used. > I would prefer to retype it to u64 because baseaddr and size don't need to be 2^n. > > Is it correct solution? If yes, I will create proper patch. Yeah, that's an inherent problem in using [) ranges but I think chopping off the last page probably is simpler and more robust solution. Currently, memblock_add_region() would simply ignore if address range overflows but making it just ignore the last page is several lines of addition. Wouldn't that be effective enough while staying very simple? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>