Re: [PATCH] x86: remove wrong -1 in calling init_memory_mapping

[Ingo Molnar]

* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> impact: make memory hot plug got last page mapped.
> 
> Shuahua Li found:
> Round up address to a page, otherwise the last page isn't mapped.
> 
> No, I just did some experiments on a desktop for memory hotplug and this bug
> triggered a crash in my test.
> Yinghai's suggestion also fixed the bug. I just want to have safer method. Anyway, either approach is ok to me.
> 
> So acctually we don't need to round it.
> just remove that extra -1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>

applied to tip/x86/urgent, thanks guys!

Note, i changed the "Impact:" line. We try to use it to provide a 
single-line description of what practical impact a patch has. For 
example if it's a bugfix, we try to describe what type of bug effect 
it fixes. If it's a cleanup, we mark it as a cleanup. If it introduces 
a new feature or changes existing behavior to improve the code, we 
describe that.

There's no hard rules, so here are a few common examples:

 Impact: fix crash with memory hotplug
 Impact: cleanup
 Impact: fix bootup crash on certain types of hardware
 Impact: improve printk output
 Impact: add (default-off) debug feature
 Impact: make the implementation faster
 Impact: cleanup (no object code changed)
 Impact: change the implementation to be more robust
 Impact: fix bootup hang on certain systems
 Impact: add new system call
 Impact: enable hardware feature and make use of it
 Impact: fix rare crash under high DB load

etc. etc.

"Wrong" impact lines are the ones which just describe the change 
itself, not the general impact:

 Impact: add +1 to condition
 Impact: change foo() to call bar() as well
 Impact: flush the TLB when tearing down a mapping
 Impact: check for NULL

these are less useful because they just duplicate the information 
already available in the patch itself.

	Ingo

----------------->