[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEAF9B6.2040606@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:55:50 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi_memmap
specified.
On 05/12/2010 11:10 AM, Mike Travis wrote:
>
> Currently, the e820_reserve_resources() function does not add entries
> obtained via the "add_efi_memmap" kernel cmdline option. This causes
> /sys/firmware/memmap/... to be incomplete (stops after 128 entries).
> Utilities that examine these entries then do not get the complete
> picture of system memory.
>
> This patch causes the above function to use the e820 memmap instead
> of the e820_saved memmap if "add_efi_memmap" cmdline option is
> specified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
If I'm not mistaken, the very reason for the e820 vs e820_saved map is
that the latter is supposed to reflect the firmware report, whereas the
former is subject to be modified by the kernel. As this is actually a
reflection of the firmware (although it would be better if you could fix
the bootloader instead of adding hacks in the kernel...) it really
should go into e820_saved as well as e820. Displaying the adjusted e820
map doesn't seem appropriate under any circumstances.
-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