Messages in this thread | | | From | Jan-Simon Möller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:12:44 +0100 |
| |
Am Samstag 08 März 2008 12:13:01 schrieb Jiri Kosina: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > as i said it in another reply to this thread, it would be perfectly > > > acceptable for upstream to merge an easier to use boot option - be > > > that badmem=addr$size or excludemem=addr$size. Please send a patch :-) > > > > It already called: > > memmap=addr$size > > ... and has been implemented for years. Does the badram patch do > > anything different? (And yes, I agree the $/@/# is ugly.) > > I admit that I haven't examined badram too closely, but I think that what > it has in addition to what you can get by simple 'memmap=..' is that it > allows you to use bitmasks to mask particular address patterns.
I had once a bad ram-module and even after heavy search didn't came across memmap or its usage. Together with memtest86 badram= is pretty usable. So for usability's sake i strongly vote for badram= - good name, quite good to use. If you wanna tune on the internal implementation - thats fine ;) .
Best regards Jan-Simon -- 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/
| |