Hi, My calculation was wrong. > It is certain that (pseudo-)physical memory "256GB-" and "-4TB" exits. "256GB-" and "-16TB". > And it is always sparse actually... So my patch always consumes large amount of memory... It is not good. (though the patch is usefull actually now) As I said: > I intended to modify as less existent code as possible. But this may be wrong. I hope my patch helps to understand IA64's phys-to-machine mapping structure... Thanks. -- Itsuro ODA <oda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
