Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread H. Peter Anvin
The problem is that the code will be broken, and so it makes no sense. The #if 0 is really confusing. Daniel Vetter wrote: >On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu >wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:50:48PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help. > >> > >> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks. >

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL will not help. Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:50:48PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-11 Thread H. Peter Anvin
The problem is that the code will be broken, and so it makes no sense. The #if 0 is really confusing. Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help. >> >> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks. > > The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help. > > Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks. The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment. The change is just making things more confusing.

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c >>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c >> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c >>

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c > index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c > @@ -81,7

[PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
Now we have arch_pfn_mapped array, and max_low_pfn_mapped should not be used anymore. Only user is ACPI_OVERRIDE, and it should not use that, as later accessing is using early_remap. Change to try to 4G below and then 4G above. Other user is in drm/i915, but it is commented out. Should use

[PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
Now we have arch_pfn_mapped array, and max_low_pfn_mapped should not be used anymore. Only user is ACPI_OVERRIDE, and it should not use that, as later accessing is using early_remap. Change to try to 4G below and then 4G above. Other user is in drm/i915, but it is commented out. Should use

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c index

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: diff --git

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL will not help. Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks. The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment. The change is just making things

Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped

2013-03-07 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL will not help. Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks. The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a