linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86802c440806251614t68ec7bf9o8f39b8c31b245977@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:14:54 -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 3:21 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>>
>
> I posted a patch to remove end_pfn and replace it with num_physpages
> everywhere, which obviously clashed badly with your patch ;)

32bit has max_pfn, max_low_pfn, max_pfn_mapped...and min_low_pfn.

>
>> 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?

x86 64 bit that they are same. num_phypages = max_pfn
32 bit when HIGHMEM=y, it is same.num_phypages = max_pfn
         when HIGHMEM=n, num_phypages = max_low_pfn

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/