On 09/09/2012 12:04 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 09:56 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So it should either be start=0xfffffffffffff000 end=0xffffffffffffffff
or it should be start=0xfffffffffffff000 len=0x1000.
I would strongly object to the former; that kind of inclusive ranges
breed a whole class of bugs by themselves.
Another alternative that avoids overflow issues is to use a PFN rather
than a byte address.
Except as a result of that logic have a bunch of places which either
have rounding errors in how they calculate PFNs, or they think they can
stick PFNs into 32-bit numbers. :(
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
