Hi,
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:45:26PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Gu Zhimin wrote:
> >
> > Fix this problem by changing pfn limit from max_low_pfn to max_pfn.
> > This issue should also exist on 64bits systems, if there are reserved
> > regions above 4GB.
>
> Should? Can
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Gu Zhimin wrote:
>
> Fix this problem by changing pfn limit from max_low_pfn to max_pfn.
> This issue should also exist on 64bits systems, if there are reserved
> regions above 4GB.
Should? Can we please have facts and not some half baken assumptions?
On 64bit max_low_pfn i
On Mon 2018-08-27 17:42:05, Gu Zhimin wrote:
> From: Zhimin Gu
>
> On 32bit systems, nosave_regions(non RAM areas) located between
> max_low_pfn and max_pfn are not excluded from hibernation snapshot
> currently, which may result in a machine check exception when
> trying to access these unsafe r
From: Zhimin Gu
On 32bit systems, nosave_regions(non RAM areas) located between
max_low_pfn and max_pfn are not excluded from hibernation snapshot
currently, which may result in a machine check exception when
trying to access these unsafe regions during hibernation:
[ 612.800453] Disabling lock
4 matches
Mail list logo
