Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764036AbYCDOHA (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:07:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763976AbYCDOGQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:06:16 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47043 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763964AbYCDOGO (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:06:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:06:04 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rick van Rein Cc: devzero@web.de, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory Message-ID: <20080304140604.GG32383@elte.hu> References: <182234194@web.de> <20080304132724.GB32383@elte.hu> <20080304134322.GA19237@phantom.vanrein.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080304134322.GA19237@phantom.vanrein.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1544 Lines: 33 * Rick van Rein 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. > > I'm not sure if that is an optimal replacement of BadRAM at all. > > Broken memories usually manifest themselves as a column or row in a > DIMM that stopped working. So there is a pattern in the memory that > is to be excluded, and I'm not wholly sure that combines well with the > excludemem mechanism. (I will look into it to be sure.) I hope to > know after the weekend if the patterns that I am talking about can be > turned into to a cosmetic boot option. feel free to extend the "excludemem=" mechanism to support the full range of "badram=" configuration methods. As long as you are able to feed it into an e820 table (which is not trivial at all), it's the right thing to do and it would be mainstream acceptable. and i wouldnt mind the "badmem=" option either - because you already have users of that facility and it's intuitively named as well - as long as it's cleanly fed into the e820 space. I.e. it would all look and behave the same way towards users as the BadMem patch does - with a different internal approach. Ingo -- 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/