[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:0.021 / U:7.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site