From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:52 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: Use of __pa() with CONFIG_NONLINEAR Message-ID: <49810000.1091045752@flay> In-Reply-To: <1091045615.2871.364.camel@nighthawk> References: <1090965630.15847.575.camel@nighthawk> <20040728181645.GA13758@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com> <35960000.1091044039@flay> <1091045615.2871.364.camel@nighthawk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Mike Kravetz , Andy Whitcroft , Joel Schopp , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 12:47, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> Can someone explain the necessity to create the new address space? We don't >> need it with the current holes between nodes, and from my discssions with >> Andy, I'm now unconvinced it's necessary. > > Actually, the new address space is quite separated from what I'm > proposing here. I'd prefer to discuss that part when we have an > implementation surrounding it. I can explain it now if you'd like, but > it's going to be a bit harder with no code. > > The reason we need boot-time __{p,v}a() macros is really quite separate > from the new (logical) address space. These new macros are just so we > can assume flat addressing during boot or compile-time, before any > nonlinear structures are set up. Ah, OK ... makes more sense - thanks. However ... what happens to functions calling __pa that are called from boot time and run time code? M. -- 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