* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/15/25 00:18, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >> How about we reuse 'MAX_NONPAE_PFN' like this: > >> > >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32)) > >> memblock_remove(PFN_PHYS(MAX_NONPAE_PFN), -1); > >> > >> Would that make the connection more obvious? > > Yes, that's better. Here's the updated patch: > > Looks, great. Thanks for the update and the quick turnaround on the > first one after the bug report! > > Tested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> I've amended the fix in tip:x86/urgent accordingly and added your tags, thanks! Ingo
