[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803101112.45105.dl9pf@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:12:44 +0100
From: Jan-Simon Möller <dl9pf@....de>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
devzero@....de, pavel@....cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rick@...rein.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory
Am Samstag 08 März 2008 12:13:01 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > as i said it in another reply to this thread, it would be perfectly
> > > acceptable for upstream to merge an easier to use boot option - be
> > > that badmem=addr$size or excludemem=addr$size. Please send a patch :-)
> >
> > It already called:
> > memmap=addr$size
> > ... and has been implemented for years. Does the badram patch do
> > anything different? (And yes, I agree the $/@/# is ugly.)
>
> I admit that I haven't examined badram too closely, but I think that what
> it has in addition to what you can get by simple 'memmap=..' is that it
> allows you to use bitmasks to mask particular address patterns.
I had once a bad ram-module and even after heavy search didn't came across
memmap or its usage. Together with memtest86 badram= is pretty usable.
So for usability's sake i strongly vote for badram= - good name, quite good
to use. If you wanna tune on the internal implementation - thats fine ;) .
Best regards
Jan-Simon
--
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