On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > @@ -396,33 +406,24 @@ u64 __init __lmb_alloc_base(u64 size, u64 align, u64 max_addr) > > if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE) > > max_addr = LMB_REAL_LIMIT; > > > > + /* Pump up max_addr */ > > + if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE) > > + max_addr = ~(u64)0; > > + > > That if is pretty useless as you set max_addr to LMB_REAL_LIMIT > right above. Well, actually no :-) LMB_REAL_LIMIT can actually be == to LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE which at this stage in the series is still 0, so we must not miss the second bit. Subsequent patches remove this anyways as LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE gets turned into ~0 which makes more sense. So it's a bit weird looking, but it's correct and transitory code only. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>