[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:01:10 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Zachary Amsden" <zach@...are.com>,
"Alok Kataria" <akataria@...are.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Fix broken VMI in 2.6.27-rc..
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...nel.org> wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> The fixmap area should never have been made movable. It's utter
>>> braindamage.
>>
>> Shrug. It's been like that for a couple of years now. It was one of the
>> very first paravirt-ops patches. It wasn't controversial then, and nobody
>> seems to have noticed since.
>
> The Linux kernel was never a paragon of perfection - it was never meant to
> be. Just because a bit of cruft went unnoticed into the kernel doesn't mean
> we shouldn't fix it.
>
>>> Given the x86 architecture, it's inevitable that PV will want to reserve
>>> address space at the top of memory, and therefore the fixmap area needs to
>>> be moved out of that space.
>>
>> OK. But there's a few places where the code uses FIXADDR_TOP to mean "top
>> of kernel address space", so we'd need to come up with a proper symbol for
>> that.
why not reserving that in e820 table?
YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists