On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > + end = round_up(start, ram_alignment(start)) - 1; > + if (start > (resource_size_t)end) > continue; > - reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, start, > - end - 1, "RAM buffer"); > + reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, (resource_size_t)start, > + (resource_size_t)end, "RAM buffer"); Hmm. You shouldn't need the casts with reserve_region_with_split(), and they just make things uglier. Also, I wonder if we should do something like this instead #define MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE ((resource_size_t)-1) ... end = round_up(start, ram_alignment(start)) - 1; if (end > MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE) end = MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE; if (start > end) continue; Because otherwise we'll just be ignoring resources that cross the resource size boundary, which sounds wrong. We _could_ have a RAM resource that crosses the 4GB boundary, after all. Yeah, it doesn't happen much in practice, because usually the 3G-4G range is left for PCI mappings etc, so we might never hit this in practice, but still, this sounds like a more correct thing to do. It also avoids the cast. We simply cap the end to the max that 'resource_size_t' can hold. That said, I have to admit that I'm getting tired of these bugs that only happen when we have a 32-bit resource_size_t. So I can understand the attraction to just forcing it to 64-bit and forgetting about these irritating issues. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
