From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932542AbVHIN05 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:26:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932538AbVHIN05 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:26:57 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46288 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932542AbVHIN04 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:26:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 0/2] mm: remove PageReserved From: Arjan van de Ven To: Nick Piggin Cc: Hugh Dickins , Russell King , ncunningham@cyclades.com, Daniel Phillips , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <42F8AC87.5060403@yahoo.com.au> References: <42F57FCA.9040805@yahoo.com.au> <200508090710.00637.phillips@arcor.de> <1123562392.4370.112.camel@localhost> <42F83849.9090107@yahoo.com.au> <20050809080853.A25492@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <42F88514.9080104@yahoo.com.au> <42F8AC87.5060403@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:26:35 +0200 Message-Id: <1123593996.3839.27.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.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 Tue, 2005-08-09 at 23:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > I understand what you mean, and I agree. Though as far away from the > business end of the drivers I am, I tend to get the feeling that > drivers need the most hand holding. they do. It's important to make driver APIs as fool proof as possible. > > Anyway, I guess the way to understand the problem is finding the > reason why ioremap checks PageReserved, and whether or not ioremap > should be expected (or allowed) to remap physical RAM in use by > the kernel. I can't think of ANY valid reason for that, in fact, it'll break a lot due to cache aliases etc etc, on various cpus if not even on x86