linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: add max

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]

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/