[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245203099.11965.7.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:44:59 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 09:38 +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
Maybe we need a real life example for that "fix". And attribute that to
the vendor in comments.
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