Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue May 16 2006 - 13:21:14 EST

Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Resending, since I haven't heard anything back yet.
> Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
> BugMe #6538.
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> diff -urpN 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c
> --- 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2006-05-12 10:26:59.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2006-05-12 13:49:38.000000000 -0700
> @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> * Specifically, in the case of x86, we will always add
> * memory to the highmem for now.
> */
> int add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> {

I already have this patch queued up but I was half-wondering whether to not
send it in for 2.6.17. Partly because the kernel actually links and
apparently works, which is a rarity when memory hotplug is concerned.

And partly because, well, just look at the patch. It will give the kernel
new global symbols add_memory() and remove_memory(). So how come it links
OK at present? And how do we know that it'll link correctly with all
configs once those symbols are added? If it _does_ link OK with these
symbols added then they're not needed anyway.

So there's something fishy going on here.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at