[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Ignore MCFG if the mmconfig area isn't reserved in thee820 table
On Friday 24 March 2006 16:24, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:15:19AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'll do a new patch using this for x86_64 though, no need to make a
> >> > second function like this.
> >>
> >> int __init e820_mapped(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> >> unsigned type)
> >
> >
> > Why not use the same type of function like x86_64 as well instead of the newly
> > added is_820_mapped()? If the purpose of both functions is the same, i386 could benefit
> > with same style code instead of a slight variant.
> the purpose is not the same. the e820_mapped function is far less strict in its check
> (I'm still afraid it is too weak for this purpose actually)

In theory they should be the same. What do you think is different?

> and it's not is_e820_mapped but is_e820_reserved()

That's just a special case.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-24 16:42    [W:0.098 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site