Hi, On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:30:17PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 00:46 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 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 :) > > " > > Oh well, I don't care enough to fight this battle in my current state so I wish you to get well soon Ben! > unless Dave has more stamina than I have today, I'm ok with the patch. Well it doesn't really matter in the end what is decided as long as something is decided :). I was asked through a forward so I only expressed my preference... -- 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>