Re: mem=16MB laptop testing

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > I do not think this wants to be fixed. It should remain compatible
> > with 2.4.X, and if it is not that's a bug [and pretty dangerous & hard
> > to debug one -- if you mark something as ram which is not, you get
> > real bad data corruption].
> 
> 2.4:
> static void __init limit_regions (unsigned long long size)
> {
> 	unsigned long long current_addr = 0;
> 	int i;
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) {
> 		if (e820.map[i].type == E820_RAM) {
> 			current_addr = e820.map[i].addr + e820.map[i].size;
> 			if (current_addr >= size) {
> 				e820.map[i].size -= current_addr-size;
> 				e820.nr_map = i + 1;
> 				return;
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> }
> 
> 2.5:
> static void __init limit_regions (unsigned long long size)
> {
> 	int i;
> 	unsigned long long current_size = 0;
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) {
> 		if (e820.map[i].type == E820_RAM) {
> 			current_size += e820.map[i].size;
> 			if (current_size >= size) {
> 				e820.map[i].size -= current_size-size;
> 				e820.nr_map = i + 1;
> 				return;
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> }

Do you want to say that calculation is different, already? We should
probably make 2.5 version match 2.4 version, that's what users
expect. Who changed it and why?

							Pavel

-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]