lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit
Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and use max_pfn directly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai. I have picked up these
>>> patches:
>>>
>>> Ingo Molnar (1):
>>> Merge branch 'x86/setup-memory'
>>>
>>> Yinghai Lu (6):
>>> x86: fix e820_update_range size when overlapping
>>> x86: get max_pfn_mapped in init_memory_mapping
>>> x86: add table_top check for alloc_low_page in 64 bit
>>> x86: change size if e820_update/remove_range
>>> x86: numa 32 using apicid_2_node to get node for logical_apicid
>>> x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit
>>>
>>>
>> Did you CC: this to me to indicate that "x86_64: replace end_pfn with
>> num_physpages" conflicts massively with this patch? Fortunately I don't
>> depend on it, so I don't mind much.
>>
>> How does "max_pfn" differ from "num_physpages"? Should one of them go as
>> well?
>>
>
> 64bit setup_arch assign num_physpages with end_pfn...
>

I posted a patch to remove end_pfn and replace it with num_physpages
everywhere, which obviously clashed badly with your patch ;)

> and max_pfn is defined in linux/bootmem.h
> num_physpages is defined in linux/mm.h

Do they contain separate values? Do they mean different things?

J


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-26 00:25    [W:0.078 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site