At 10/29/2012 06:48 PM, richard -rw- weinberger Wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > So, is this an ACK or not? > I don't know. Here is the origin message: At 06/15/2012 04:22 AM, Rob Landley Wrote: > I have no objection to this but can't confirm it's true or not without > an awful lot more digging through the code I don't have time for right > now. (All the x86-32 machines I've used just had the 640k->1m hole and > the rest was contiguous memory, so the behavior would be the same either > way...) > > Sort-of-tentatively-acked-by: Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
