From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757170Ab0CaWNx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:13:53 -0400
Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41444 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755161Ab0CaWNw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:13:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@linux.ie
Subject: Re: Config NO_BOOTMEM breaks my amd64 box
Message-ID: <20100331221341.GA20441@elte.hu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1003311539490.23281@tundra.namei.org>
 <4BB2EB1B.8090303@zytor.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.00.1003311747040.23859@tundra.namei.org>
 <4BB3C739.2020106@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BB3C739.2020106@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5
	_SUMMARY_
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/init_32.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/init_32.c
> @@ -875,7 +875,12 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
>  	BUG_ON(!mem_map);
>  #endif
>  	/* this will put all low memory onto the freelists */
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM) && defined(MAX_NUMNODES)
> +	/* In case some 32bit systems don't have RAM installed on node0 */
> +        totalram_pages += free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);

(Note: tab whitespace damage)

> +#else
>  	totalram_pages += free_all_bootmem();

So we get into this branch if CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is enabled but MAX_NUMNODES is 
not defined? Doesnt look right.

> +#endif

Btw., and i said this before, i absolutely hate the CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM naming 
as well (a negative in the option), but it is was what expresses the 'this is 
where we want to go' state better and thus CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM removal will be a 
straight removal instead of a removal of the inverse.

Thanks,

	Ingo