[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CA16522.8060107@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:46:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
kexec <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, caiqian@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kexec load failure introduced by "x86, memblock: Replace e820_/_early
string with memblock_"
On 09/27/2010 05:53 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> Actually, hardcoding the upper limit to 4G is probably not the best idea.
> Kexec loads the the relocatable binary (purgatory) and I remember that
> one of the generated relocation type was signed 32 bit and allowed max value
> to be 2G only. So IIRC, purgatory code always needed to be loaded below 2G.
>
> I liked HPA's other idea better of introducing memblock_find_in_range_lowest()
> so that we search bottom up and not rely on a specific upper limit.
>
No, it's just another crappy hack which is broken in the same way. It's
better than open-coding, but it's still a hack.
The Right Thing[TM] to do is for kexec to communicate the topmost
address it wants to this code, so it has both the upper and the lower
boundaries available to it instead of just one.
-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