[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BFC5217.6060804@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:41:27 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC: Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...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>, jkosina@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi_memmap
specified.
On 05/25/2010 03:34 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/13/2010 02:55 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>>> I saw that too, and wondered why e820_saved did not
>>> have the extra entries. The comment indicates it
>>> should.
>>>
>>> I'm on the system tonight and will investigate this
>>> further.
>>>
>>
>> e820_saved lacks the extra entries because they aren't being passed in
>> from the bootloader, as they should, and instead you're using
>> add_efi_memmap which is, as far as the kernel is concerned, a post-boot
>> modification.
>>
>> That being said, add_efi_memmap does come from the firmware, and as such
>> it would be legitimate for it to add them to e820_saved.
>>
>> -hpa
>
> Did this last patch meet expectations?
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127474230623061&w=4
>
I'm concerned about calling sanitize_e820_map() on e820_saved; it is
supposed to reflect the raw data as reported by the source, and
sanitizing it would corrupt that.
-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