Re: [PATCH] um/mm: get max_low_pfn from memblock

2024-06-14 Thread Wei Yang
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:51:32AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: >On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:31:59AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 14.06.24 03:58, Wei Yang wrote: >> > Current calculation of max_low_pfn is introduced in commit af84eab20891 >> > ("[PATCH] uml: fix LVM crash"). It is intended t

Re: [PATCH] um/mm: get max_low_pfn from memblock

2024-06-14 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:31:59AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 14.06.24 03:58, Wei Yang wrote: > > Current calculation of max_low_pfn is introduced in commit af84eab20891 > > ("[PATCH] uml: fix LVM crash"). It is intended to set max_low_pfn to the > > same value as max_pfn. > > > > But I

Re: [PATCH] um/mm: get max_low_pfn from memblock

2024-06-14 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 14.06.24 03:58, Wei Yang wrote: Current calculation of max_low_pfn is introduced in commit af84eab20891 ("[PATCH] uml: fix LVM crash"). It is intended to set max_low_pfn to the same value as max_pfn. But I am not sure why the max_pfn is set to totalram_pages, which represents the number of us

[PATCH] um/mm: get max_low_pfn from memblock

2024-06-13 Thread Wei Yang
Current calculation of max_low_pfn is introduced in commit af84eab20891 ("[PATCH] uml: fix LVM crash"). It is intended to set max_low_pfn to the same value as max_pfn. But I am not sure why the max_pfn is set to totalram_pages, which represents the number of usable pages in system instead of an ab