linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4BA7CE1B.9070109@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:07:55 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, hpa@...or.com, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c
 to fw_memmap.cy

On 03/22/2010 12:37 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo,
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> ( Cc:-ed Andrew and Linus as this is a general design/policy matter wrt. 
>>>   memory management. )
>>>
>>> * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>>>> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:28:38 -0700
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That action means you absolutely don't value our feedback at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> [PATCH 01/20] x86: add find_e820_area_node
>>>>> is addressing your concern that early_res didn't handle memory cross the nodes problem.
>>>>
>>>> Now I know that you _REALLY_ aren't listening to us.
>>
>>> [ He has done a bit more than just to simply listen: he seems to
>>> have written a patch which he thinks is addressing the concerns you
>>> pointed out. It might not be the response you wished for (and it
>>> might be inadequate) for but it sure gives me the impression of him
>>> listening to you - unless by 'listening' you mean 'follow my exact
>>> opinion without argument'. ]
>>
>> I tend to disagree. Fixing the bug pointed out by Dave is not really a
>> good argument about listening.
>>
>> The main point is that there is still no answer why lmb cannot be used and 
>> the reposted patch still is a full move of the x86 e820 functions into 
>> kernel/fw_memmap.c.
>>
>> That's not a generalization, that's simply a relocation of x86 code to 
>> kernel/. And I agree with Dave and Ben that this is an useless exercise.
> 
> ok - i think you are right. Yinghai, mind having a look at using lib/lmb.c for 
> all this?

1. need to keep e820
2. use e820 range with RAM to fill lmb.memory when finizing_e820
3. use lmb.reserved to replace early_res.

current lmb is merging the region, we can not use name tag any more.

may need to dump early_memtest, and use early_res for bootmem at first.

YH
--
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/