[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4862B915.3010001@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:31:01 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>> and use max_pfn directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.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?
J
--
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