On 09/09/2012 12:04 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 09:56 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So it should either be start=0xfffffffffffff000 end=0xffffffffffffffff
or it should be start=0xfffffffffffff000 len=0x1000.
I would strongly object to the former; that kind of inclusive ranges
breed a whole class of bugs by themselves.
Another alternative that avoids overflow issues is to use a PFN rather
than a byte address.
Except as a result of that logic have a bunch of places which either
have rounding errors in how they calculate PFNs, or they think they can
stick PFNs into 32-bit numbers. :(
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>