From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3405876c84b4b238ab22a9d1200a77a2@hamnavoe.com> References: <52369c6626d4245fb56cebedb438801a@kw.quanstro.net> <3405876c84b4b238ab22a9d1200a77a2@hamnavoe.com> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] go forth and ulong no more! Topicbox-Message-UUID: deb9cc24-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 22 November 2012 11:00, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote: > OTOH, it's not worth making special provision for physical memory addresses. > I think that any code which is dealing with those is not likely to be > portable to another architecture for many other reasons. I can't envision > a single mmu.c being applicable to both 386 and amd64 ... It's more useful than you think, which is why both jmk and I separately added it (I called mine physaddr, but changed to his name). Even port refers to physical addresses (eg, Page), and previously those were ulong. It also needs a name to cast values to the right size when doing calculations.