Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, nobootmem: fix wrong usage of max_low_pfn

From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Wed Mar 20 2013 - 16:18:43 EST

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:07:21PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:35:45AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Can you check why sparc do not need to change interface during converting
> > to use memblock to replace bootmem?
> Sure.
> According to my understanding to sparc32 code(arch/sparc/mm/init_32.c),
> they already use max_low_pfn as the maximum PFN value,
> not as the number of pages.

I assume you already know...
sparc64 uses memblock, but sparc32 does not.
I looked at using memblock for sparc32 some time ago but got
distracted by other stuff.
I recall from back then that these ackward named variables confused me,
and some of my confusion was likely rooted in sparc32 using
max_low_pfn for something elase than others do.

I have no plans to look into adding memblock support for sparc32
right now. But may eventually do so when I get some spare time.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at