Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:07:05 +0000
From: Rick van Rein <rick@vanrein.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory
Message-ID: <20080310220705.GB27356@phantom.vanrein.org>
References: <182234194@web.de> <200803101224.07628.dl9pf@gmx.de> <20080310115237.GA29197@elf.ucw.cz> <200803101523.03620.dl9pf@gmx.de> <47D56DD3.8060108@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47D56DD3.8060108@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 847
Lines: 28

Hello,

> >badram=0x18690000,0xffff0000
> >(which means a whole from 0x18690000 to 0x1869ffff )
> 
> memmap=0x18690000$64K
> 
> 	or
> 
> memmap=0x18690000$0x10000

The true challenge, of course, is to map things like these:

badram=0x18fedcba36,0xfffecff6a

This is a repetitive pattern, and this is why people enjoy the syntactic
sugar of BadRAM (which is penciled down from the output of memtest86).
It appears to be the prevailing wind in this discussion that the patch
must be rewritting to make series of amandments as a long series of
memmap would do, and I'll take on that task.

Cheers,
 -Rick
--
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/