[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d6222a80806170925u197b0f7bye6fb9b071a3d03f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:25:16 -0300
From: "Glauber Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: merge setup_memory_map with e820
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> + boot_params.e820_entries = new_nr;
>>>> + if (copy_e820_map(boot_params.e820_map, boot_params.e820_entries)
>>>> < 0) {
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>> + early_panic("Cannot find a valid memory map");
>>>> +#else
>>>
>>> Can't this be made dependant on HIGHMEM instead of X86_64? It seems
>>> high-memory dependant anyway. Also, are you sure
>>> this code that maps into himem would work with HIGHMEM disabled anyway?
>
> that is behavoir before merge.
>
>>>
>>
>> Uhm... x86-64 and HIGHMEM are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Either way, it shouldn't be dependent on anything; there is no reason why
>> the #else clause can't be applied to both.
>
> remove the early_panic?
If this can be done, I'm for it.
However, it would be better to leave this patch as is, and throw in
another one that just address that, for bisectability purposes.
> YH
>
--
Glauber Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists