[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170109134502.GK16838@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:45:02 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve through
memblock after mm_init()
On Mon, 09 Jan, at 01:31:52PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Well, you could put in a __init global variable about availability into
> mm/memblock.c and then check it in memblock APIs like memblock_reserve()
> to BUG_ON? I know BUG_ON is frowned upon but this is not likely to be a
> situation that can be sensibly recovered.
Indeed. I've only ever seen this situation lead to silent memory
corruption and bitter tears.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists