Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] update mem= option's spec according to its implementation

[Wen Congyang]

At 10/29/2012 06:48 PM, richard -rw- weinberger Wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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>
> 
> So, is this an ACK or not?
> 

I don't know.

Here is the origin message:

At 06/15/2012 04:22 AM, Rob Landley Wrote:
> I have no objection to this but can't confirm it's true or not without
> an awful lot more digging through the code I don't have time for right
> now. (All the x86-32 machines I've used just had the 640k->1m hole and
> the rest was contiguous memory, so the behavior would be the same either
> way...)
> 
> Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Rob
--
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/