This looks like a singularly bad pointer value on x86-64.
Why not pick something that is *guaranteed* to fault? The above looks like
any future setup that supports 41 bits of addressing and has extended the
page tables (yes, it will happen eventually) will find that to be a
perfectly valid address?
It's also visually confusing, since it's visually very close to a real
kernel pointer too.
Grr.
Why not use something sane like 0xdead000000000000, which has the high bit
set but very fundamentally isn't a valid pointer, and never will be? And
which is a *lot* more visually obvious too!
Linus
--
