[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49AB3377.40904@goop.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:16:39 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: brk patches..
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If the brk is bounded-size on the same order or smaller as the kernel,
> we should just mark it as an unallocated (bss) section in the ELF image
> and be done with it... there really is no point in trying to be smarter
> (we'd be subject to failures to load the kernel proper.) If the brk is
> significantly bigger, then yes, we need to be smarter. However, that is
> not my current understanding of the requirements.
>
Yes, right. And in my case I actually need it to generate an
appropriate e820 table, so adding a dependency on e820 would be circular...
(To be specific: I reshape the guest e820 table so that it doesn't have
memory in any forbidden areas of the host e820 table. That may require
moving the pseudo-physical address of pages into a new overflow e820
entry, which would also require allocating pages for the p2m radix tree.)
J
--
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