(2010/06/17 11:50), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:06AM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
Index: linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.34.orig/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 04:43:00.978332015 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c 2010-06-15 05:32:59.291693007 +0900
@@ -62,8 +62,8 @@
static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
unsigned long size, unsigned long prot_val, void *caller)
{
- unsigned long pfn, offset, vaddr;
- resource_size_t last_addr;
+ unsigned long offset, vaddr;
+ resource_size_t pfn, last_pfn, last_addr;
I have a hard time understanding this change. pfn is always a physical
address shifted by PAGE_SHIFT. So a 32-bit pfn supports up to 44-bit
physical addresses. Are your addresses above 44-bits?
@@ -115,7 +113,7 @@
* Mappings have to be page-aligned
*/
offset = phys_addr& ~PAGE_MASK;
- phys_addr&= PAGE_MASK;
+ phys_addr = (phys_addr>> PAGE_SHIFT)<< PAGE_SHIFT;
I'd rather see PAGE_MASK fixed. Would this work?
#define PAGE_SIZE (_AC(1,UL)<< PAGE_SHIFT)
-#define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
+#define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE-1ULL))
I think it should work. But I'm worrying about regressions.
Now I think using PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK (as my v.1 patch did) is good idea
again. What do you think about this?
Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
--
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
