On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:16 AM, <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > 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 <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> > Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> > --- > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
