Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:31:40 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r327950 - in head/sys/powerpc: aim include powerpc ps3 Message-ID: <f33e9b1a-28bd-e6cf-4bdb-ec0097c0787d@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <010d0153-8931-a3c2-db21-dfcbaf848fc0@freebsd.org> References: <201801132314.w0DNEra5002692@repo.freebsd.org> <20180113232441.GV1684@kib.kiev.ua> <010d0153-8931-a3c2-db21-dfcbaf848fc0@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/13/18 15:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > On 01/13/18 15:24, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 11:14:53PM +0000, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>> +/* >>> + * We (usually) have a direct map of all physical memory. All >>> + * uses of this macro must be gated by a check on hw_direct_map! >>> + * The location of the direct map may not be 1:1 in future, so use >>> + * of the macro is recommended; it may also grow an assert that >>> hw_direct_map >>> + * is set. >>> + */ >>> +#define PHYS_TO_DMAP(x) x >>> +#define DMAP_TO_PHYS(x) x >> Take a look at the sys/vm/vm_page.c:vm_page_free_prep() function. >> > > I think the checks in there should work as designed, unless I'm > missing something. Am I? > -Nathan > Actually, wait, this is broken if hw_direct_map is not set. I can do an #ifdef __powerpc__ hack, but do you have opinions for a better MI flag for "yes, the macro is defined but, no, the direct map may not be available"? -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f33e9b1a-28bd-e6cf-4bdb-ec0097c0787d>