From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx121.postini.com [74.125.245.121]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81ABE6B0092 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:52:21 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [Patch 3/4] memblock: limit memory address from memblock Message-ID: <20120514165221.GA14426@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <4FACA79C.9070103@cn.fujitsu.com> <4FB0F174.1000400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FB0F37E.2040805@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FB0F37E.2040805@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu Cc: Lai Jiangshan , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:58:54PM +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > Setting kernelcore_max_pfn means all memory which is bigger than > the boot parameter is allocated as ZONE_MOVABLE. So memory which > is allocated by memblock also should be limited by the parameter. > > The patch limits memory from memblock. I see no reason why we need two limits for memblock. And if we really require two limits then please use a function to set it. All other setup/etc. towoards memblock is via function, and starting to introduce magic variables is confusing. Also new stuff in memblock shal have a nice comment describing the usage. that we in the past has failed to do so is no excuse. Sam -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org