From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1TZbk6-0006R3-D6 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:19:03 +0000 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <1353107067-14564-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1353107067-14564-4-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:18:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1353107067-14564-4-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> (Yinghai Lu's message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:04:22 -0800") Message-ID: <87haoo21mw.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] add mem64_min/max control List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Haren Myneni , Simon Horman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Vivek Goyal , "H. Peter Anvin" Yinghai Lu writes: > So could limit range for 4g above buffers. What is wrong with mem-min and mem-max? At this point in the patchset it looks like you are introducing mem64-min and mem64-max as a hack to avoid fixing mem-min and mem-max properly. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec