Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 May 2010 10:39:24 -0700 | Subject | Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi_memmap specified. | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote: > > > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> On 05/25/2010 03:34 PM, Mike Travis wrote: >>> >>> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05/13/2010 02:55 PM, Mike Travis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I saw that too, and wondered why e820_saved did not >>>>> have the extra entries. The comment indicates it >>>>> should. >>>>> >>>>> I'm on the system tonight and will investigate this >>>>> further. >>>>> >>>> e820_saved lacks the extra entries because they aren't being passed in >>>> from the bootloader, as they should, and instead you're using >>>> add_efi_memmap which is, as far as the kernel is concerned, a post-boot >>>> modification. >>>> >>>> That being said, add_efi_memmap does come from the firmware, and as such >>>> it would be legitimate for it to add them to e820_saved. >>>> >>>> -hpa >>> >>> Did this last patch meet expectations? >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127474230623061&w=4 >>> >> >> I'm concerned about calling sanitize_e820_map() on e820_saved; it is >> supposed to reflect the raw data as reported by the source, and >> sanitizing it would corrupt that. >> >> -hpa > > I wondered about that. Sanitize seems to remove adjacent > entries, etc. making the map smaller, but I couldn't detect > any real differences (though admittedly I didn't do a byte > by byte comparison.) > > But I'll submit another with that call removed.
can you use updated boot loader instead?
Also we should drop add_efi_memmap if possible.
YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |