From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/2] x86: add support for the
	non-standard protected e820 type
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 17:55:54 +0200
Message-ID: <20150406155554.GA24266@lst.de>
References: <1427872339-6688-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1427872339-6688-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1428077687.31093.120.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <CAE9FiQXg0DZ3oCGmPk+qubwQ_=9LLMrZTJqN6HPn0t+5Vs8+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQXg0DZ3oCGmPk+qubwQ_=9LLMrZTJqN6HPn0t+5Vs8+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Should we also delete this code, accounting E820_PRAM as ram, along with
> > the deletion of reserve_pmem() in this version?
> 
> should revert those end_of_ram change as attached.

This works fine for me:

Tested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>


> -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn)
> +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)

But I'd prefer not to re-add the argument here, it only obsfucates the
code.