[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327081007.GA12909@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:10:07 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
boaz@...xistor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: add a is_e820_ram() helper
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:59:28PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> What do you want to get here?
>
> You did not modify memblock_x86_fill() to treat
> E820_PRAM as E820_RAM, so memblock will not have any
> entry for E820_PRAM, so you do not need to call memblock_reserve
> there.
>
> And the same time, init_memory_mapping() will call
> init_range_memory_mapping/for_each_mem_pfn_range() to
> set kernel mapping for memory range in memblock only.
> So here calling init_memory_mapping will not do anything.
> then just drop calling to that init_memory_mapping.
> --- so will not kernel mapping pmem, is that what you intended to have?
I think the intent of the old Intel code was to indeed map the pmem
into KVA space. That got broken when I forward ported it to use
memblocks. However the current pmem infrastructure doesn't need the
KVA mapping, so I can remove it for now.
However we have heated discussions about how to do I/O to pmem, and
KVA mapping is one of the options. If we got with that option I might
bring this code back in a fixed up version.
--
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