[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51688803.8020401@sr71.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:17:39 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead
of memmap= boot parameter
On 04/12/2013 07:56 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 07:31 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
>>> and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
>>> the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
>>> seems to be intended to od.
It varies from arch to arch of course.
But, /dev/mem has restrictions on it, like CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM or the
ARCH_HAS_VALID_PHYS_ADDR_RANGE. There's a lot of stuff that depends on
it, *and* folks have tried to fix it up so that it's not _as_ blatant of
a way to completely screw your system.
/dev/mem also tries to be nice to arches that have restrictions like:
> /*
> * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as
> * uncached, then it must also be accessed uncached
> * by the kernel or data corruption may occur
> */
I think /dev/oldmem isn't so nice and could actually cause some real
problems if used on ia64 where the cached/uncached accesses are mixed.
--
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