[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] cleanup hardcoding __pa/__va macros etc. (take-2)

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup hardcoding __pa/__va macros etc. (take-2)
From: girish <>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:20:30 +0900
Cc: "" <>, girish <>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=e5xLctlAW7jZZdD68pgRg4xExExyztoO5PCXVQ2AtQhHs7LGb51vu/hpPwZfR75upCBU0TEipEpxzQFKmKZ4je/imxW3QAc+gprv0p9zXWH49loagimdEB4Jo7TmY8yIIaCkiwjnyUjunD2Q1Kw+yl3ud1HmslpeEZsG+CLa/mI=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
Thread-index: Acbhf01Di8KIO01yEdulewATIGIqNA==
Thread-topic: [PATCH] cleanup hardcoding __pa/__va macros etc. (take-2)
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
>> The idea is to differentiate the Kseg0/Kseg1 segments in the physical area.
>> Beyond these areas lies the mapped area (or the HIGHMEM). What complicates
>> this matter further is their overlapping nature. The __pa()/__va() treated
>> all addresses mapped into PAGE_OFFSET (8000_0000) area. The effort is to
>> correctly differentiate these areas.
> Yes, __va() and __pa() are used to convert an physical address from/to
> an kernel logical address (i.e. low unmapped virtual address).
> I think passing another sort of addresses to them is simply wrong.


But, then again treating all addresses as above PAGE_OFFSET is also wrong :)
I looked at it just as a work around. These macros are called from so many
other places that if an access is made at say 4000_0000 the kernel will oops
telling it was C000_0000 access error. Now that confused me a lot! With this
change now kernel oops on 4000_0000 :)

Anyway, you may ignore __pa/__va macros.

Could you please look into other changes I proposed?

> P.S.
> Please do not reply to

I am sorry. It was a stupid mistake in creating address book entry.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>