Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:04:53 +0200 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Revert E820_PRAM change in e820_end_pfn() |
| |
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:36:37AM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 04/06/2015 10:00 PM, Toshi Kani wrote: > > 'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 ("x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard > > protected e820 type")' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have > > have struct-page. Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn > > to cover the E820_PRAM ranges. > > But E820_PRAM ranges will have the possibility for struct-page. > > That said I have tested with this patch + struct-page and
I'd love to resurrect the old "real page backed" pmem support from the old Intel patches eventually, but with all the arguments on how we should do I/O on pmem I'd like to keep that a ѕeparate discussion. And leaving only fragments of some support in is a bad idea, so sorry for letting all this slip through..
> > -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn) > > +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type) > > Why don't you rename it to say e820_max_ram_pfn or something with ram > as you noted, and drop the @type. As Christoph said it is very ugly. You do not > put an extra parameter because of a bad name? > > Anyway you are changing all call sites so it will not even be a bigger > change
It's a static function, and we have much worse naming sins in public ones, so I'm not worried about a _ram more or less. But if people feel stronly about it I'm fine with adding the _ram.
I feel pretty stronly against adding back a pointless argument, though.
| |