[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ad804f8-7ed2-4952-bd96-b169beece359@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:49:13 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
CC: "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
This is also true on some x86 systems.
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
>On 04/14/2013 09:52 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
>> This sounds like there's no such issue on x86 cache mechanism. Is it
>> correct? If so, what is the difference between ia64 and x86 cache
>> mechanisms?
>
>I'm just going by the code comments:
>
>drivers/char/mem.c
>> /*
>> * 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.
>> */
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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