Hello, On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I haven't said to replace phys_addr_t! > My point was something like this (just as example on parisc and > free_bootmem_node). > The problematic part is kmemleak code which could be good reason not to > change it. I think it's still a bad idea and you haven't provided any justification for it. Think about it - any user which uses pa() may get that last page and if that user is using [start,end) range, it may overflow. It doesn't even matter how you implement it. I just can't understand why you obsess about that last page. It doesn't matter. Just add those few lines to exclude the last single page and be done with it. Unless you're gonna provide rationale for why adding such risk and more complexity makes sense for that single last page which most BIOSes wouldn't even map, I don't really think this thread is going anywhere. 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>