From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Use of __pa() with CONFIG_NONLINEAR From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <49810000.1091045752@flay> References: <1090965630.15847.575.camel@nighthawk> <20040728181645.GA13758@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com> <35960000.1091044039@flay> <1091045615.2871.364.camel@nighthawk> <49810000.1091045752@flay> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1091046231.2871.379.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:23:52 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Mike Kravetz , Andy Whitcroft , Joel Schopp , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 13:15, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > However ... what happens to functions calling __pa that are called from > boot time and run time code? I've actually only run into one of those so far that I know of, and that was on ppc64 (i386 had none that I found). In that one case, I used an if(unlikely()) to optimize for the run-time one. There might be more, but I think they're rare enough to just code it with an if() in each case. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org