Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:21:14 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |