[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:0.074 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site