On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:15:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> > V2: fix pfn check in valid_mmap_phys_addr_range, thanks to Dave Hansen
>
> AFAICT, Dave also asked you to change size_t count into something more
> intuitive, i.e. nr_bytes or such.
Hi,
mea culpa, I for unknown reason changed it from "size" to "count". I guess some
cut&paste mess. The correct prototype used elsewhere in kernel is
int valid_mmap_phys_addr_range(unsigned long pfn, size_t size)
Does it make sense to replace "count" with "size" so it's consistent with the
rest or do you prefer "nr_bytes" or as Dave proposed "len_bytes"?
I will fix this and I'm sorry Dave I did not change it as discussed. It totally
slipped my mind.
Many thanks Thomas.
>
> > +int valid_mmap_phys_addr_range(unsigned long pfn, size_t count)
>
> And right he is. I really had to look twice to see that count is
> actually number of bytes and not number of pages, which is what you
> expect after pfn.
>
> > +{
> > + return arch_pfn_possible(pfn + (count >> PAGE_SHIFT));
> > +}
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
Frantisek Hrbata
--
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>