[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1280309131.1970.280.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:25:31 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, yinghai@...nel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 23:01 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be
> > reserved, at least for the forseeable future. Other architectures may
> > very well have non-special RAM there.
>
> 0 is very much possible on sparc64
Yup, we need to fix that.
For now I made MEMBLOCK_ERROR 0 and added a blurb to prevent allocating
the first page since it would cause other problems with the current code
(0 is after all the normal error result from membloc_alloc(), ie, our
API wasn't quite consistent there).
So I don't think I'm introducing a regression here, on the contrary. But
if we are going to allow lmb_alloc() to return 0, we need to fix all
callers first and then we can look into turning MEMBLOCK_ERROR back to
~0
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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