On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:17:51PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Hmm, I guess we don't have anything that is better than using > > vm_address_t for physical addresses? At least not in > > include/mach/std_types.h, i386/include/mach/i386/vm_types.h. Should we? > > (phys_address_t based on natural_t?) > > Maybe we should, indeed, else we can't do PAE.
I'd suggest using natural_t (or unsigned long) too. But then, it can't be used to address >4 GiB physical memory. Consider expressing physical memory in page frame numbers. -- Richard Braun
