Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >     
> > > * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> > > > and use max_pfn directly.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >         
> > > applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai. I have picked up these
> > > patches:
> > >
> > > Ingo Molnar (1):
> > >      Merge branch 'x86/setup-memory'
> > >
> > > Yinghai Lu (6):
> > >      x86: fix e820_update_range size when overlapping
> > >      x86: get max_pfn_mapped in init_memory_mapping
> > >      x86: add table_top check for alloc_low_page in 64 bit
> > >      x86: change size if e820_update/remove_range
> > >      x86: numa 32 using apicid_2_node to get node for logical_apicid
> > >      x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit
> > >
> > >       
> > Did you CC: this to me to indicate that "x86_64: replace end_pfn with
> > num_physpages" conflicts massively with this patch?  Fortunately I don't
> > depend on it, so I don't mind much.
> >
> > How does "max_pfn" differ from "num_physpages"?  Should one of them go as
> > well?
> >     
>
> 64bit setup_arch assign num_physpages with end_pfn...
>   

I posted a patch to remove end_pfn and replace it with num_physpages 
everywhere, which obviously clashed badly with your patch ;)

> and max_pfn is defined in linux/bootmem.h
> num_physpages  is defined in linux/mm.h

Do they contain separate values?  Do they mean different things?

   J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/