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

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 10/20/2012 02:11 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Do you mean max_addr option? It is only for ia64 box.

No.
Your patch say x86-32 and x86-64 have different mem parameter
semantics. and I doubt it.
--
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/