Message ID | 1353949160-26803-169-git-send-email-herton.krzesinski@canonical.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 11/26/2012 08:57 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote:
> 3.5.7u1 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
What kind of version number is that?
-hpa
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:02:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 11/26/2012 08:57 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > > 3.5.7u1 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > What kind of version number is that? This is an "extended stable" tree, a fork from the last 3.5 stable update (3.5 isn't maintained anymore by stable upstream). Thus it seemed better to just follow last released 3.5 stable version, and append an extraversion to it, which I chose in the end to be u<n> (u == update). It's unlikely that other 3.5 stable upstream update will be done, in any case I expect this way to avoid any issue. > > -hpa > >
On 11/26/2012 12:08 PM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:02:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 11/26/2012 08:57 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: >>> 3.5.7u1 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. >> >> What kind of version number is that? > > This is an "extended stable" tree, a fork from the last 3.5 stable > update (3.5 isn't maintained anymore by stable upstream). Thus > it seemed better to just follow last released 3.5 stable version, and > append an extraversion to it, which I chose in the end to be u<n> > (u == update). It's unlikely that other 3.5 stable upstream update will > be done, in any case I expect this way to avoid any issue. > Why not 3.5.7.1 sticking with the pre-established version numbering scheme? -hpa
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:09:52PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 11/26/2012 12:08 PM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:02:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 11/26/2012 08:57 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > >>> 3.5.7u1 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >> > >> What kind of version number is that? > > > > This is an "extended stable" tree, a fork from the last 3.5 stable > > update (3.5 isn't maintained anymore by stable upstream). Thus > > it seemed better to just follow last released 3.5 stable version, and > > append an extraversion to it, which I chose in the end to be u<n> > > (u == update). It's unlikely that other 3.5 stable upstream update will > > be done, in any case I expect this way to avoid any issue. > > > > Why not 3.5.7.1 sticking with the pre-established version numbering scheme? That looks better indeed. Since this is the first release, I'll turn it this way. > > -hpa > >
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c index 16be6dc..e615c31 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c @@ -919,8 +919,21 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 if (max_pfn > max_low_pfn) { - max_pfn_mapped = init_memory_mapping(1UL<<32, - max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT); + int i; + for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) { + struct e820entry *ei = &e820.map[i]; + + if (ei->addr + ei->size <= 1UL << 32) + continue; + + if (ei->type == E820_RESERVED) + continue; + + max_pfn_mapped = init_memory_mapping( + ei->addr < 1UL << 32 ? 1UL << 32 : ei->addr, + ei->addr + ei->size); + } + /* can we preseve max_low_pfn ?*/ max_low_pfn = max_pfn; }