From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030297AbWFUVBq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:01:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030300AbWFUVBq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:01:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:15791 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030297AbWFUVBe (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:01:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:01:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Greg KH Cc: vgoyal@in.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 64bit resources start end value fix Message-Id: <20060621140125.c27bc99e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060621204414.GA30766@suse.de> References: <20060621172903.GC9423@in.ibm.com> <20060621132227.ec401f93.akpm@osdl.org> <20060621204120.GA14739@in.ibm.com> <20060621204414.GA30766@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:44:15 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > > > Confused. This patch won't apply. It will apply with `patch -R', and if > > > you do that you'll break iomem_reosurce.end by setting it to > > > 0x00000000ffffffff. > > > > > > I don't think any additional changes are needed here. > > > > Andrew, you don't have to apply this patch. It is supposed to be picked > > by Greg. > > > > There seems to be some confusion. Just few days back Greg consolidated > > and re-organized all the 64bit resources patches and posted on LKML for > > review. > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115015916118671&w=2 > > > > There were few review comments regarding kconfig options. > > I reworked the patch and CONFING_RESOURCES_32BIT was changed to > > CONFIG_RESOURCES_64BIT. > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115072559700302&w=2 > > > > Now Greg's tree and your tree are not exact replica when it comes to > > 64bit resource patches. Hence this patch is supposed to be picked by > > Greg to make sure things are not broken in his tree. > > It still breaks things as Andrew pointed out. .end should not be set to > -1. No, -1 is OK. As it turns out, unsigned long long x = ~0UL; sets `x' to 0xffffffffffffffff which was totally not what I expected. But -1 works, and the patch I have against your tree is OK. Could someone please fix Andy Isaacson 's bug, btw?