Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>   
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>     
>>> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> and use max_pfn directly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> 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?
>>     
>
> 64bit setup_arch assign num_physpages with end_pfn...
>   

I posted a patch to remove end_pfn and replace it with num_physpages 
everywhere, which obviously clashed badly with your patch ;)

> and max_pfn is defined in linux/bootmem.h
> num_physpages  is defined in linux/mm.h

Do they contain separate values?  Do they mean different things?

    J