On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:07:21PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:35:45AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Can you check why sparc do not need to change interface during converting
> > to use memblock to replace bootmem?
>
> Sure.
> According to my understanding to sparc32 code
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:35:45AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Can you check why sparc do not need to change interface during converting
> to use memblock to replace bootmem?
Sure.
According to my understanding to sparc32 code(arch/sparc/mm/init_32.c),
they already use max_low_pfn as the maximum PF
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 03:25:22PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47:41PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim
> > wrote:
> > > max_low_pfn reflect the number of _pages_ in the system,
> > > not the maximum PFN. You can easily find tha
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47:41PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > max_low_pfn reflect the number of _pages_ in the system,
> > not the maximum PFN. You can easily find that fact in init_bootmem().
> > So fix it.
>
> I'm confused. for x86, we ha
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> max_low_pfn reflect the number of _pages_ in the system,
> not the maximum PFN. You can easily find that fact in init_bootmem().
> So fix it.
I'm confused. for x86, we have max_low_pfn defined in ...
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
/* max_low_p
max_low_pfn reflect the number of _pages_ in the system,
not the maximum PFN. You can easily find that fact in init_bootmem().
So fix it.
Additionally, if 'start_pfn == end_pfn', we don't need to go futher,
so change range check.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/nobootmem.c b/mm/noboo
6 matches
Mail list logo
