> -----Original Message----- > From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:51 AM > To: benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix assmption of end_of_DRAM() returns end address > > From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:17:39 +1000 > > > On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 19:25 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >> memblock_end_of_DRAM() returns end_address + 1, not end address. > >> While some code assumes that it returns end address. > > > > Shouldn't we instead fix it the other way around ? IE, make > > memblock_end_of_DRAM() does what the name implies, which is to return > > the last byte of DRAM, and fix the -other- callers not to make bad > > assumptions ? > > That was my impression too when I saw this patch. Initially I also intended to do so. I initiated a email on linux-mm@ subject "memblock_end_of_DRAM() return end address + 1" and the only response I received from Andrea was: " It's normal that "end" means "first byte offset out of the range". End = not ok. end = start+size. This is true for vm_end too. So it's better to keep it that way. My suggestion is to just fix point 1 below and audit the rest :) " Thanks -Bharat -- 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