On (11/27/18 18:33), Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > On 11/20/18 10:18 PM, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > > > > Russell, > > > > I have tried to place MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS in the best available > > header for each architecture, considering different paging levels, PAE > > existence, and existing similar definitions. Also, I have only > > considered those architectures already having "sparsemem.h" header. > > > > Would you mind reviewing it ? > > Should I re-send the this v2 (as v3) with complete list of > get_maintainer.pl ? I was in doubt because I'm touching headers from > several archs and I'm not sure who, if it is accepted, would merge it. Yes, resending and Cc-ing archs' maintainers if the right thing to do. It's also possible that they will ask to split the patch and do a per-arch change. -ss
