Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758236Ab2J2Ky6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:54:58 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:26715 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750846Ab2J2Ky5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:54:57 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,671,1344182400"; d="scan'208";a="6092350" Message-ID: <508E61D6.3080101@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:00:38 +0800 From: Wen Congyang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100413 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richard -rw- weinberger CC: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Rob Landley , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , bhelgaas@google.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] update mem= option's spec according to its implementation References: <1351500524-23907-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1351500524-23907-2-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/29 18:54:13, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/29 18:54:14, Serialize complete at 2012/10/29 18:54:14 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1233 Lines: 32 At 10/29/2012 06:48 PM, richard -rw- weinberger Wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: >> Current mem= implementation seems buggy because specification and >> implementation doesn't match. Current mem= has been working >> for many years and it's not buggy, it works as expected. So >> we should update the specification. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang >> Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley > > So, is this an ACK or not? > I don't know. Here is the origin message: At 06/15/2012 04:22 AM, Rob Landley Wrote: > I have no objection to this but can't confirm it's true or not without > an awful lot more digging through the code I don't have time for right > now. (All the x86-32 machines I've used just had the 640k->1m hole and > the rest was contiguous memory, so the behavior would be the same either > way...) > > Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley > > Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/