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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:23:19 +0800 From: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com> To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> CC: tglx@...utronix.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: add max_addr boot option At 05/23/2012 03:51 AM, Rob Landley Wrote: > On 05/22/2012 02:02 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: >> If we only want to use node0, we can specify the max_addr. The boot >> option "mem=" can do the same thing now. But the boot option "mem=" >> means the total memory used by the system. If we tell the user >> that the boot option "mem=" can do this, it will confuse the user. >> So we need an new boot option "max_addr" on x86 platform. > > I didn't follow that reasoning at all. Care to try again? > > (mem= can do this, but telling users that would confuse them? What?) mem= means the total memory, but we implement it as max address. I donot know why we implement it as max address. The users donot know how we implement, and they only know that they can use mem= to set the total memory. If you tell the users that mem= can set max address, it will confuse them. Thanks Wen Congyang > > Rob -- 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