Re: [PATCH] x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit

["Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> and use max_pfn directly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>> applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai. I have picked up these
>> patches:
>>
>> Ingo Molnar (1):
>>      Merge branch 'x86/setup-memory'
>>
>> Yinghai Lu (6):
>>      x86: fix e820_update_range size when overlapping
>>      x86: get max_pfn_mapped in init_memory_mapping
>>      x86: add table_top check for alloc_low_page in 64 bit
>>      x86: change size if e820_update/remove_range
>>      x86: numa 32 using apicid_2_node to get node for logical_apicid
>>      x86: remove end_pfn in 64bit
>>
>
> Did you CC: this to me to indicate that "x86_64: replace end_pfn with
> num_physpages" conflicts massively with this patch?  Fortunately I don't
> depend on it, so I don't mind much.
>
> How does "max_pfn" differ from "num_physpages"?  Should one of them go as
> well?

64bit setup_arch assign num_physpages with end_pfn...

and max_pfn is defined in linux/bootmem.h
num_physpages  is defined in linux/mm.h

YH