From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261786AbUKCRN2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:13:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261727AbUKCRN1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:13:27 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:6154 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261746AbUKCRJ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:09:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] remove direct mem_map refs for x86-64 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Andi Kleen Cc: Matt Tolentino , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20041103170208.GB1514@wotan.suse.de> References: <200411031647.iA3GlmBm016951@snoqualmie.dp.intel.com> <1099499567.2813.24.camel@laptop.fenrus.org> <20041103170208.GB1514@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1099501787.2813.29.camel@laptop.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2.dwmw2.1) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:09:47 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [62.195.31.207 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [62.195.31.207 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 18:02 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:32:47PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 08:47 -0800, Matt Tolentino wrote: > > > - page = pgdat->node_mem_map + i; > > > - total++; > > > + page = pfn_to_page(pgdat->node_start_pfn + i); > > > + total++; > > > > this can't be correct... pfn_to_page starts to count from address 0 > > while the original code starts from the start of the node.. > > That is why he adds node_start_pfn DOH yes; sorry.