[PATCH] arm64:mm: initialize max_mapnr using function set_max_mapnr

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:37:36PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Catalin Marinas
> <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:37:41PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> >> In some config cases, max_mapnr is not defined and direct reference
> >> results in to compilation error.
> >> This is fixed by using set_max_mapnr() helper.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni at caviumnetworks.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> >> index 5472c24..271e654 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> >> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static void __init free_unused_memmap(void)
> >>   */
> >>  void __init mem_init(void)
> >>  {
> >> -     max_mapnr   = pfn_to_page(max_pfn + PHYS_PFN_OFFSET) - mem_map;
> >> +     set_max_mapnr(pfn_to_page(max_pfn) - mem_map);
> >
> > These are not equivalent as PHYS_PFN_OFFSET is dropped (which looks like
> > the correct thing to do but the commit log should reflect this as well).
> is below comment ok for the change? if so i can resend the patch.
> 
> Initializing max_mapnr using set_max_mapnr() helper function instead
> of direct reference.
> Also not adding PHYS_PFN_OFFSET to max_pfn, since it already contains it.

Yes.

-- 
Catalin