Hallo! On Mon, 9 May 2011 13:19:22 +0200, Richard Braun <rbr...@sceen.net> wrote: > 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.
Good idea! But: what about differently sized frames (4 KiB/2 MiB/whatever amd64 allows)? (In case it'd make sense to support these at some point?) Or is this over-engineering already? Grüße, Thomas
pgpTtOACGU65b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
