[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1280298592.1970.248.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:29:52 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Tue, 2010-07-27 at 22:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
Right, that's my point. Anyways, I'm making 0 special for now and adding
a wart to prevent the allocator from returning something below
PAGE_SIZE. If we want to revisit that later we can.
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