From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937590AbZAPVTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:19:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758320AbZAPVTA (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:19:00 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:58147 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755389AbZAPVTA (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:19:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:18:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Jan Beulich , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify HIGHMEM-related Kconfig entries Message-ID: <20090116211849.GB10063@elte.hu> References: <496DE927.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <496E3F7D.2060908@zytor.com> <496F0796.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090115085728.GA28607@elte.hu> <496F6DFC.90006@zytor.com> <49708423.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <4970D04C.9080104@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4970D04C.9080104@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: 1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: s X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 1.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4992] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jan Beulich wrote: >>> If so, what would be the difference between HIGHMEM4G and HIGHMEM64G in >>> that case at all? >> >> For example being able to select the DMADEVICES config option. > > WTF?! Why would DMA device support be banned on HIGHMEM64G? That makes > no sense whatsoever... yes - but i guess the point is that there is some assymetry there which needs to be investigated and fixed. Ingo