2010-04-01 20:25:12

by Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 07:07:32PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>
> So arch code could decide the way to reserve the ibft.
>
> And We should reserve ibft as early as possible, instead of BOOTMEM stage,
> in case the table is in RAM range and is not reserved by BIOS.

What test vehicle did you use to find this bug?


.. snip..
> + if (size)
> + reserve_early_overlap_ok(addr, addr + size, "ifbt");
^^^^ - ibft

2010-04-01 21:02:44

by Yinghai Lu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()

On 04/01/2010 01:12 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 07:07:32PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>>
>> So arch code could decide the way to reserve the ibft.
>>
>> And We should reserve ibft as early as possible, instead of BOOTMEM stage,
>> in case the table is in RAM range and is not reserved by BIOS.
>
> What test vehicle did you use to find this bug?

code review for CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM

reserve_bootmem() should only be used for converting entries reserved by reserved_early()

so When we are using CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM, reserve_bootmem() is killed.

>
>
> .. snip..
>> + if (size)
>> + reserve_early_overlap_ok(addr, addr + size, "ifbt");
> ^^^^ - ibft
thanks, will change it.

Yinghai