[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <69D0866F-77A7-4529-A01E-12395106E22D@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:35:28 -0700
From: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
sstabellini@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 1:06 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index b9a667d36c55..7fc2a87110a3 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -96,10 +96,16 @@ void mem_hotplug_done(void)
> cpus_read_unlock();
> }
>
> +u64 max_mem_size = -1;
This may be pedantic, but I'd rather see U64_MAX used here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists