>>> On 25.07.12 at 18:57, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 12:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> should drop all phys_addr assignment in this function.
>>>
>>> x86_phys_bits should have all correct value?
>>
>> Is it certain that all special cases (setting phys_addr to 32) are
>> covered by
On 07/25/2012 12:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
should drop all phys_addr assignment in this function.
x86_phys_bits should have all correct value?
Is it certain that all special cases (setting phys_addr to 32) are
covered by those CPUs not having PAE/PSE36? One would
think that this is valid to i
>>> On 07.07.12 at 00:02, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Now that the x86_phys_bits cpuinfo field is uniformly available on
>> 32- and 64-bit, the function no longer needs to determine this anew.
>>
>> Additionally, both size_or_mask and size_and_mask ca
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Now that the x86_phys_bits cpuinfo field is uniformly available on
> 32- and 64-bit, the function no longer needs to determine this anew.
>
> Additionally, both size_or_mask and size_and_mask can be set once at
> the end of the function instead
4 matches
Mail list logo