On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:35:13 +0800
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Is this patch really safe for all architectures?
> >
> > IS_ERR_VALUE() casts -MAX_ERRNO to unsigned long and then does comparison.
> > Isn't it possible to conflict with valid pfns?
> >
>
> See IS_ERR_VALUE():
>
> #define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)
>
> The minimal value of the error code is:
> 0xffff f001 on 32-bit and 0x ffff ffff ffff f001 on 64-bit,
> it is fair larger that a valid pfn (for the pfn, the most top of 12 bits
> are always 0).
>
> Note, PAE is a special case, but only 64G physical memory is valid,
> 0xffff f001 is also suitable for that.
Ah, I see. I misread the type pfn_t and was confused.
Thank you!
Takuya
--
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/
