[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140326133119.GD24856@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:31:19 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: david.vrabel@...rix.com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, jeremy@...p.org,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, matt.fleming@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, eshelton@...ox.com, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on
native EFI platform only
On Wed, 26 Mar, at 01:22:49PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.03.14 at 14:00, <matt@...sole-pimps.org> wrote:
> >
> > This could do with a little bit more explanation. Why is it not
> > necessary to mark the EFI memory map that was passed to the kernel as
> > reserved in memblock?
>
> Because that's in memory Dom0 doesn't even see: The EFI memory
> map is visible to the hypervisor only.
So where does boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap point?
If nowhere (i.e. it's NULL) that's no problem because memblock_reserve()
handles zero size regions just fine.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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