On 05/12/16 18:49, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is actually to
On 05/12/16 18:49, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is actually to
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:21:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alex Thorlton wrote:
>
> > It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> > case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> > E820_X_MAX is always at least
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:21:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alex Thorlton wrote:
>
> > It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> > case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> > E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than
* Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is
* Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is actually to prevent some
6 matches
Mail list logo