Re: [PATCH] (2.4.x bk) efi_memmap_walk_uc

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2003-07-30 10:12:39
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:00:26 -0700, Christopher Wedgwood <> said:

  Christopher> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:54:27PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:

  >> Let's stick with a tried-and-true malloc/free-like interface (nobody
  >> every gets size arguments to free() right, do they?).

  Christopher> I'd like to claim this is too complex

I don't buy this.  Just store a header along with the actual data
(yes, accesses to the header will be slow, but nobody cares).

  Christopher> Jack also pointed out for MINSTATE handling on SN2 we
  Christopher> would want local-node pages so perhaps something like:

  Christopher> u64 ia64_uc_alloc(u64 nbytes, int nodeid, int flags);
  Christopher> void ia64_uc_free(u64 paddr);

  Christopher> Simply claim '0' is not a useful physical address in
  Christopher> this sense and thus signifies and error?

  Christopher> The 'flags' seems overly complex but would be a
  Christopher> mechanism to insist that memory is allocated from the
  Christopher> given node (as opposed to just a hint for locality).

  Christopher> Comments?

The "uc" should be changed to "ucmem" or something like that, to avoid
confusion with allocating uncached address space (what we're
allocating here is normal memory which is mapped uncached).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Tue Jul 29 20:12:55 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:16 EST