[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A384914.1090900@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:38:28 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: efi/e820 table merge fix
Huang Ying wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 05:43 +0800, Cliff Wickman wrote:
>> From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
>> --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/efi.c
>> +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/efi.c
>> @@ -240,10 +240,35 @@ static void __init do_add_efi_memmap(voi
>> unsigned long long size = md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
>> int e820_type;
>>
>> - if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
>> - e820_type = E820_RAM;
>> - else
>> + switch (md->type) {
>> + case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
>> + case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
>> + case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
>> + case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
>> + case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
>> + if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
>> + e820_type = E820_RAM;
>> + else
>> + e820_type = E820_RESERVED;
>> + break;
>
> Why does BIOS mark memory region without EFI_MEMORY_WB as these types?
> Any example?
>
Probably not, but if it does, it's broken, and the memory should be
ignored. The original code had the EFI_MEMORY_WB check already, so it
seems prudent to keep it.
-hpa
--
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