Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Revert E820_PRAM change in e820_end_pfn()

[Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 09:04 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:36:37AM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > On 04/06/2015 10:00 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > 'Commit ec776ef6bbe17 ("x86/mm: Add support for the non-standard
> > > protected e820 type")' added E820_PRAM ranges, which do not have
> > > have struct-page.  Therefore, there is no need to update max_pfn
> > > to cover the E820_PRAM ranges.  
> > 
> > But E820_PRAM ranges will have the possibility for struct-page.
> > 
> > That said I have tested with this patch +  struct-page and
> 
> I'd love to resurrect the old "real page backed" pmem support from
> the old Intel patches eventually, but with all the arguments on
> how we should do I/O on pmem I'd like to keep that a ѕeparate
> discussion. And leaving only fragments of some support in is a bad
> idea, 

Agreed -- it should be a separate discussion and we need to get it
straight for 4.1.

> so sorry for letting all this slip through..

No problem.

> > > -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn)
> > > +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
> > 
> > Why don't you rename it to say e820_max_ram_pfn or something with ram
> > as you noted, and drop the @type. As Christoph said it is very ugly. You do not
> > put an extra parameter because of a bad name?
> > 
> > Anyway you are changing all call sites so it will not even be a bigger
> > change
> 
> It's a static function, and we have much worse naming sins in public
> ones, so I'm not worried about a _ram more or less.  But if people feel
> stronly about it I'm fine with adding the _ram.
> 
> I feel pretty stronly against adding back a pointless argument, though.

We should keep this patch as a revert/fix, and should not combine with
other cleanup.  Adding the _ram, etc. can be done as a separate change.

Thanks,
-Toshi