Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 1/2] update mem= option's spec according to its implementation

[Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>]

At 10/20/2012 02:11 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:16 AM,  <wency@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> From: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> 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 <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt |    7 ++++---
>>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index 9776f06..85b911a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -1481,9 +1481,10 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
>>         mem=nn[KMG]     [KNL,BOOT] Force usage of a specific amount of memory
>>                         Amount of memory to be used when the kernel is not able
>>                         to see the whole system memory or for test.
>> -                       [X86-32] Use together with memmap= to avoid physical
>> -                       address space collisions. Without memmap= PCI devices
>> -                       could be placed at addresses belonging to unused RAM.
>> +                       [X86-32] Work as limiting max address. Use together
>> +                       with memmap= to avoid physical address space collisions.
>> +                       Without memmap= PCI devices could be placed at addresses
>> +                       belonging to unused RAM.
> 
> If my remember is correct, x86-64 also specify maximum address.
> but my remember is not clear.
> 

Do you mean max_addr option? It is only for ia64 box.

Thanks
Wen Congyang