From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so5938840gxk.14 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48F60D56.6040209@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:33:42 +0200 From: Jiri Slaby MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64 References: <1223910693-28693-1-git-send-email-jirislaby@gmail.com> <20081013164717.7a21084a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20081015115153.GA16413@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 10/15/2008 05:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Queued the fix below up in tip/x86/urgent for a merge to Linus later >> today. Thanks! > > Please don't send this crap to me. > > Guys, _look_ at the patch for one second. And then tell me it isn't crap. Not in my eyes. > The question is: "Is this a vmalloc'ed area?". That's the name of the > function. AND YOU JUST BROKE IT! Modules area is vmalloc'ed on x86; on x86_64 only in different virtual address space area. So returning true from is_vmalloc_addr() for this space looks very sane to me, as it was on x86_32 for years. Users usually do is_vmalloc_addr(a) ? vfree(a) : kfree(a); Even there it makes more sense to me. However I'm fine with introducing is_module_addr() alike function for x86 to check the general modules space bounds on x86_64 and return is_vmalloc_addr() on x86_32. Does this look better? -- 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: email@kvack.org