[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170622094030.7ge2g2wsvpc6lx5r@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:40:30 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] x86/boot/e820: Introduce e820_table_ori to
represent the real original e820 layout
* Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> Currently we try to have e820_table_firmware to represent the
> original firmware memory layout passed to us by the bootloader,
> however it is not the case, the e820_table_firmware might still
> be modified by linux:
> 1. During bootup, the efi boot stub might allocate memory via
> efi service for the PCI device information structure, then
> later e820_reserve_setup_data() reserved these dynamically
> allocated structures(AKA, setup_data) in e820_table_firmware
> accordingly.
> 2. The kexec might also modify the e820_table_firmware.
Hm, so why does the EFI code modify e280_table_firmware - why doesn't
it modify e820_table?
I.e. what is the point of having 3 different versions of the
memory layout table?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists