[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100331221341.GA20441@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, airlied@...ux.ie
Subject: Re: Config NO_BOOTMEM breaks my amd64 box
* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/init_32.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/init_32.c
> @@ -875,7 +875,12 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> BUG_ON(!mem_map);
> #endif
> /* this will put all low memory onto the freelists */
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM) && defined(MAX_NUMNODES)
> + /* In case some 32bit systems don't have RAM installed on node0 */
> + totalram_pages += free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);
(Note: tab whitespace damage)
> +#else
> totalram_pages += free_all_bootmem();
So we get into this branch if CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is enabled but MAX_NUMNODES is
not defined? Doesnt look right.
> +#endif
Btw., and i said this before, i absolutely hate the CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM naming
as well (a negative in the option), but it is was what expresses the 'this is
where we want to go' state better and thus CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM removal will be a
straight removal instead of a removal of the inverse.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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