On 05/12/16 18:49, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is actually to p
It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
The real motivation behind this is actually to prevent some issues in
the Xen kernel, where the XE
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:21:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alex Thorlton wrote:
>
> > It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> > case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> > E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E82
* Alex Thorlton wrote:
> It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
> case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
> E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
>
> The real motivation behind this is actually to prevent some is
It's really not necessary to limit E820_X_MAX to 128 in the non-EFI
case. This commit drops E820_X_MAX's dependency on CONFIG_EFI, so that
E820_X_MAX is always at least slightly larger than E820MAX.
The real motivation behind this is actually to prevent some issues in
the Xen kernel, where the XE
5 matches
Mail list logo