Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:23:08 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     sstabellini@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via
 mem= parameter
Message-ID: <20190211122308.GA119972@gmail.com>
References: <20190130082233.23840-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20190130082233.23840-2-jgross@suse.com>
 <20190211120650.GA74879@gmail.com>
 <bd5863a2-291a-43e5-7633-c84c1026a31b@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bd5863a2-291a-43e5-7633-c84c1026a31b@suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:

> > If PCI devices had physical mmio memory areas above this range, we'd 
> > still expect them to work - the option was really only meant to limit 
> > RAM.
> 
> No, in this case it seems to be real RAM added via PCI. The RAM is 
> initially present in the E820 map, but the "mem=" will remove it from 
> there again. During ACPI scan it is found (again) and will be added via 
> hotplug mechanism, so "mem=" has no effect for that memory.

OK. With that background:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

I suppose you want this to go upstream via the Xen tree, which is the 
main testcase for the bug to begin with?

Thanks,

	ngo