Re: [PATCH] [30/30] x86_64: Add missing !X86_PAE dependincy to the 2G/2G split.

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Andi Kleen a ?crit :
> >From: ebiederm@xmission.com
> >
> >When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
> >on a 1G boundary.  The 2G/2G split does not have that property
> >so require !X86_PAE
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >---
> > arch/i386/Kconfig |    1 +
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
> >index 1a94a73..80003de 100644
> >--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig
> >+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig
> >@@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ choice
> > 		depends on !HIGHMEM
> > 		bool "3G/1G user/kernel split (for full 1G low memory)"
> > 	config VMSPLIT_2G
> >+		depends on !X86_PAE
> > 		bool "2G/2G user/kernel split"
> > 	config VMSPLIT_1G
> > 		bool "1G/3G user/kernel split"
> 
> Hum... We lose a usefull 2G/2G split. Should'nt we use a patch to change 
> PAGE_OFFSET to 0x8000000 instead of 0x78000000 and keep 2G/2G split ?

I dropped the patch for now.

> [PATCH] i386 : Adjust CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET in case of 2G/2G split and X86_PAE
> 
> When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
> on a 1G boundary.  We must therefore make sure PAGE_OFFSET is correctlty 
> defined in the 2G/2G split and PAE mode.

Looks reasonable. Did you test both cases? wli, ok for you too?

-Andi