Would someone pick up this one?
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 03:41:50AM +, 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
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 03:41:50AM +, 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, wh
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
