On Sunday 23 May 2010 21:29:50 Greg Ungerer wrote: > David Howells wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >> Are these also problematic? > > > > None of these are problematic for NOMMU FRV because there I set: > > #define TASK_SIZE __UL(0xFFFFFFFFUL) > > > > I would set it lower, but the flash is right at the top end of the > > address space, and if I want to do XIP from it, this is required. It's > > a fairly meaningless constant in NOMMU anyway, so it's probably better > > just to set it to this. Actually, I should probably use ULONG_MAX > > instead. > > This seems like a better option that all the use cases. > > So something like: > > -- > [PATCH] m68knommu: remove size limit on non-MMU TASK_SIZE > > The TASK_SIZE define is used in some places as a limit on the size > of the virtual address space of a process. On non-MMU systems those > addresses used in comparison will be physical addresses, and they > could be anywhere in the 32bit physical address space. So for > !CONFIG_MMU systems set the TASK_SIZE to the maximum physical > address.
fwiw, we do (and always have afaict) the same thing for Blackfin systems -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
