[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4FC5D1.3070708@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:53:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again
On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now
> and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down
> allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is,
> I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to
> revisit that a bit.
>
> That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a
> perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-)
>
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.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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