From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 18:17:02 +0200 > I assume it is a coincidence that we have the same block size > in sparc64_valid_addr_bitmapi (22) as we have for REAL_HPAGE_SHIFT. There is no relation. I should use a macro for this, for sure. The short story is that I tried to find a value that tries to be finely grained enough to handle the smallest SIMM that could be installed, but no moreso in order to not use more memory than needed for the bitmap. There are reasons to revisit this choice too, as the increase to 47 bit physical address support exploded the size of some of these tables. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
