On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 11:29 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > 'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 ("x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
> > protected e820 type")' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
> > have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> 'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 ("x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
> protected e820 type")' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
> have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn
> to cover the E820_PRAM ranges. Revert the
'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 ("x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
protected e820 type")' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn
to cover the E820_PRAM ranges. Revert the change made to account
E820_PRAM as RAM in e820_end_pfn() in
'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 (x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
protected e820 type)' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn
to cover the E820_PRAM ranges. Revert the change made to account
E820_PRAM as RAM in e820_end_pfn() in
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 (x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
protected e820 type)' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn
to cover the E820_PRAM ranges.
On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 11:29 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 (x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
protected e820 type)' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
have struct-page. Therefore, there is no
6 matches
Mail list logo