[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: user-level drivers
|
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
|
Subject: |
Re: user-level drivers |
|
Date: |
Mon, 09 May 2011 13:27:32 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.5-77-g335dd52 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) |
Hallo!
On Mon, 9 May 2011 13:19:22 +0200, Richard Braun <rbraun@sceen.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:17:51PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Hmm, I guess we don't have anything that is better than using
> > > vm_address_t for physical addresses? At least not in
> > > include/mach/std_types.h, i386/include/mach/i386/vm_types.h. Should we?
> > > (phys_address_t based on natural_t?)
> >
> > Maybe we should, indeed, else we can't do PAE.
>
> I'd suggest using natural_t (or unsigned long) too. But then, it can't
> be used to address >4 GiB physical memory. Consider expressing physical
> memory in page frame numbers.
Good idea! But: what about differently sized frames (4 KiB/2
MiB/whatever amd64 allows)? (In case it'd make sense to support these at
some point?) Or is this over-engineering already?
Grüße,
Thomas
pgpIKMvWJVadk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: user-level drivers, olafBuddenhagen, 2011/05/26
Re: user-level drivers, olafBuddenhagen, 2011/05/26