[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1214874582.27760.0.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:09:42 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86 boot: add E820_RESVD_KERN
Hi, Yinghai,
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 16:20 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >>
> >> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > For find_e820_area, this is safe enough. But what about conflict
> >>> > between setup_data and ebda or ramdisk?
> >>>
> >>> can you have setup_data and ebda at the same time?
> >>>
> >>> setup_data and ramdisk should be ok, because bootloader is supposed to
> >>> make them not to be conflicts.
> >>
> >> the more sanity checks we do before relying on some crutial data, the
> >> better. It's easier to panic or sanitize data in some structured way and
> >> complain about it in the syslog than to let things get corrupted. Boot
> >> loaders are ... not unknown to be have bugs too, at times.
> >
> > to address Ying's concern, we could let reserve_setup_data
> > call reserve_early in addition to e820_update_range...
> >
> > reserve_early will panic if RAMDISK overlap efi setup_data...
> >
>
> Ying,
> please check the attached patch
Which git-x86 head should I use to test the patch? It can not be applied
to x86/master.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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