Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-12-09 Thread Juergen Gross
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-12-09 Thread Juergen Gross
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-12-01 Thread Alex Thorlton
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-12-01 Thread Alex Thorlton
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-11-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Make E820_X_MAX unconditionally larger than E820MAX

2016-11-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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