Hi Uwe,
On 04/06/14 00:11, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:14:55PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
I think it would be OK to define TASK_SIZE to 0x for !MMU.
blackfin, frv and m68k also do this. c6x does define it to 0xF000 to
leave space for error codes.
I did that
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
>> I did that same change for m68k in commit cc24c40 ("m68knommu: remove
>> size limit on non-MMU TASK_SIZE"). For similar reasons as you need to
>> now.
> ok.
>
>> >>Thoughts?
>> >The problem is that current linus/master (and also next) does
Hello Greg,
thanks for your reply.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:14:55PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >>I think it would be OK to define TASK_SIZE to 0x for !MMU.
> >>blackfin, frv and m68k also do this. c6x does define it to 0xF000 to
> >>leave space for error codes.
>
> I did that sam
the definition of TASK_SIZE for !MMU in arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h:
- Probably this should be explict s/TASK_SIZE/CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE/. This
is generic code however while CONFIG_DRAM_SIZE is ARM only.
mm/nommu.c: if (!rlen || rlen > TASK_SIZE)
- The issue the patch by Rabin
kfin, c6x, frv and
> m32r, m68k, microblaze and xtensa lists on Cc:. (Did I miss a platform
> that cares for !MMU ?)
>
> Most occurences are fine, see the list at the end of this mail. However
> some are not or are unclear to me. Here is the complete list[1] apart from
> the defin
5 matches
Mail list logo
