From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754673AbYFYVbZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752499AbYFYVbP (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:15 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:47722 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752479AbYFYVbO (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:14 -0400 Message-ID: <4862B915.3010001@goop.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:31:01 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit References: <200806242213.15310.yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> <200806242214.09503.yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> <20080625154138.GC18796@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080625154138.GC18796@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > >> and use max_pfn directly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu >> > > applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai. I have picked up these > patches: > > Ingo Molnar (1): > Merge branch 'x86/setup-memory' > > Yinghai Lu (6): > x86: fix e820_update_range size when overlapping > x86: get max_pfn_mapped in init_memory_mapping > x86: add table_top check for alloc_low_page in 64 bit > x86: change size if e820_update/remove_range > x86: numa 32 using apicid_2_node to get node for logical_apicid > x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit > Did you CC: this to me to indicate that "x86_64: replace end_pfn with num_physpages" conflicts massively with this patch? Fortunately I don't depend on it, so I don't mind much. How does "max_pfn" differ from "num_physpages"? Should one of them go as well? J