[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again
    On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
    > Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now
    > and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down
    > allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is,
    > I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to
    > revisit that a bit.
    > That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a
    > perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-)

    On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be
    reserved, at least for the forseeable future. Other architectures may
    very well have non-special RAM there.


    H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
    I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-28 07:57    [W:0.041 / U:212.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site