[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DF65372.7090307@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:14:10 +0200
From: Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@...il.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Jim Bos <jim876@...all.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39.1 immediately reboots/resets on EFI system
Op 13-06-11 20:00, Matthew Garrett schreef:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 07:52:42PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> + if ((start <= virt_to_phys(_etext)-1 && end >= virt_to_phys(_text)) ||
>>> + (start <= virt_to_phys(_edata)-1 && end >= virt_to_phys(_etext)) ||
>> _etext -> _sdata perhaps?
> _etext is used for the resource allocation earlier, which seems like
> it's probably the relevant thing to be copying.
I meant the second comparison, start <= edata && end >= _etext
>>> memblock_x86_reserve_range(start, start + size, "EFI Boot");
>>> }
>>> }
>> Will test though. It might also be appropriate to put a WARN when that condition happens.
> That'd end up triggering even in cases that are absolutely safe (ie, the
> firmware doesn't have this bug). The amount of suck here is incredible.
Still a crapload of swapper BUGs in free_init_pages, maybe you should just give up on this approach,
and call SetVirtualAddressMap before anything of importance runs. :-/
My kernel never needed the boot code hack btw, so I'm probably a terrible test subject for it.
~Maarten
--
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