H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > Thanks, 2.6.31-rc1 vanilla (which didn't boot) plus this one does boot. > > /proc/iomem now looks as follows: > > ... as it should. So far so good, and this is a real problem. > > However, there is something that really bothers me: *why does this help > on Mikael's system, which is PAE and therefore has a 64-bit > resource_size_t*? This whole patch should be a no-op! There is still > something that doesn't make sense. > > The use of "unsigned long" in ram_alignment() will overflow after 2^52 > bytes, but again, that's not the issue here, since the highest "start" > value we have is (0x2 << 32). I assume you meant "2^32" and (0x1 << 32)? Eike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
