Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 1/2] update mem= option's spec according to its implementation

From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Fri Oct 19 2012 - 14:11:42 EST


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:16 AM, <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Current mem= implementation seems buggy because specification and
> implementation doesn't match. Current mem= has been working
> for many years and it's not buggy, it works as expected. So
> we should update the specification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 7 ++++---
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 9776f06..85b911a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -1481,9 +1481,10 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> mem=nn[KMG] [KNL,BOOT] Force usage of a specific amount of memory
> Amount of memory to be used when the kernel is not able
> to see the whole system memory or for test.
> - [X86-32] Use together with memmap= to avoid physical
> - address space collisions. Without memmap= PCI devices
> - could be placed at addresses belonging to unused RAM.
> + [X86-32] Work as limiting max address. Use together
> + with memmap= to avoid physical address space collisions.
> + Without memmap= PCI devices could be placed at addresses
> + belonging to unused RAM.

If my remember is correct, x86-64 also specify maximum address.
but my remember is not clear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/