From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:30:17 +1000 > 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 > unless Dave has more stamina than I have today, I'm ok with the patch. I'm definitely without the samina to fight something like this right now :) -- 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>