On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:46:17PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:46:17PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn.
> >
> > "We should not establish mappings for all memory under
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn.
>
> "We should not establish mappings for all memory under max_pfn."
that is not accurate.
We should not set mapping for all r
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn.
"We should not establish mappings for all memory under max_pfn."
> That causes same problem that is fixed by
"Otherwise, it causes the same ..."
>
> x86, mm: Only direct map add
We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn.
That causes same problem that is fixed by
x86, mm: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
This patch expose pfn_mapped array, and only set ident mapping for ranges
in that array.
This patch rely on new ident_mapping_init tha
5 matches
Mail list logo