[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86802c440806251457y134de928rb496da66becbe5cd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:57:27 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"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
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> 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?
64bit setup_arch assign num_physpages with end_pfn...
and max_pfn is defined in linux/bootmem.h
num_physpages is defined in linux/mm.h
YH
--
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