Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/2] x86: add support for the non-standard protected e820 type

[Ingo Molnar]

* Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 10:12 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:12 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >   :
> > >> @@ -748,7 +758,7 @@ u64 __init early_reserve_e820(u64 size, u64 align)
> > >>  /*
> > >>   * Find the highest page frame number we have available
> > >>   */
> > >> -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
> > >> +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn)
> > >>  {
> > >>       int i;
> > >>       unsigned long last_pfn = 0;
> > >> @@ -759,7 +769,11 @@ static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
> > >>               unsigned long start_pfn;
> > >>               unsigned long end_pfn;
> > >>
> > >> -             if (ei->type != type)
> > >> +             /*
> > >> +              * Persistent memory is accounted as ram for purposes of
> > >> +              * establishing max_pfn and mem_map.
> > >> +              */
> > >> +             if (ei->type != E820_RAM && ei->type != E820_PRAM)
> > >>                       continue;
> > >
> > > Should we also delete this code, accounting E820_PRAM as ram, along with
> > > the deletion of reserve_pmem() in this version?
> > 
> > should revert those end_of_ram change as attached.
> 
> I confirmed that the pmem driver works with the change, and last_pfn is
> updated as expected.

Could someone please send the fix with a changelog, etc?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/