Hi Greg,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:10:16AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 17/6/20 10:33 pm, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On 17/6/20 4:53 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > From: Mike Rapoport
> > >
> > > The m68k nommu setup code didn't register the beginning of the
Hi Mike,
On 29/6/20 2:14 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:10:16AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 17/6/20 10:33 pm, Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 17/6/20 4:53 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
The m68k nommu setup code didn't register the beginning of the physical
Hi Mike,
On 17/6/20 10:33 pm, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 17/6/20 4:53 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
The m68k nommu setup code didn't register the beginning of the physical
memory with memblock because it was anyway occupied by the kernel. However,
commit fa3354e4ea39
Hi Mike,
On 17/6/20 4:53 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
The m68k nommu setup code didn't register the beginning of the physical
memory with memblock because it was anyway occupied by the kernel. However,
commit fa3354e4ea39 ("mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than
From: Mike Rapoport
The m68k nommu setup code didn't register the beginning of the physical
memory with memblock because it was anyway occupied by the kernel. However,
commit fa3354e4ea39 ("mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than
zone sizes") changed zones initialization to use
5 matches
Mail list logo
