From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932412AbVHIHJL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 03:09:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932415AbVHIHJL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 03:09:11 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:36620 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932412AbVHIHJK (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 03:09:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:08:53 +0100 From: Russell King To: Nick Piggin Cc: ncunningham@cyclades.com, Daniel Phillips , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management , Hugh Dickins , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 0/2] mm: remove PageReserved Message-ID: <20050809080853.A25492@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Piggin , ncunningham@cyclades.com, Daniel Phillips , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management , Hugh Dickins , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Benjamin Herrenschmidt References: <42F57FCA.9040805@yahoo.com.au> <200508090710.00637.phillips@arcor.de> <1123562392.4370.112.camel@localhost> <42F83849.9090107@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <42F83849.9090107@yahoo.com.au>; from nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au on Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:59:53PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:59:53PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > That would work for swsusp, but there are other users that want to > know if a struct page is valid ram (eg. ioremap), so in that case > swsusp would not be able to mess with the flag. The usage of "valid ram" here is confusing - that's not what PageReserved is all about. It's about valid RAM which is managed by method other than the usual page counting. Non-reserved RAM is also valid RAM, but is managed by the kernel in the usual way. The former is available for remap_pfn_range and ioremap, the latter is not. On the other hand, the validity of an apparant RAM address can only be tested using its pfn with pfn_valid(). Can we straighten out the terminology so it's less confusing please? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core