Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752546AbYKMIEd (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:04:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750933AbYKMIEX (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:04:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:38244 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbYKMIEX (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:04:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:04:21 +0100 From: Bernhard Walle To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Always use 64 bit addresses for the firmware memory map Message-ID: <20081113090421.763f7df3@hale.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <491B6855.1080609@kernel.org> References: <1226519089-21647-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> <491B358D.2040304@kernel.org> <20081112221106.5d9d7801@kopernikus.site> <491B6855.1080609@kernel.org> Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) X-Face: ,G!z)dEOMkc[Cu+sF64,T9^5r3b>/}#HBRL%D^j@\SZbr'Itl7q@1<*dgB?A7(_leO1Tc4^ D*WfvfwKcz;,@E^y+pNP%86n8o<&g-vToCXW:r>Y$jxY,`KT?{H!07=2|Jdt?0ba^C-Tnx50vIV8It vi&Sicl:sj`k2`y)E;ECFi;i7W-?t3%\kD*));q)+%-pQd^.r'W}oBBx=+.~Gu}&F;lS7.a-m>Rv"w pe`D'OV^?HJd$-)7<2T[naDPl6+bAj'+UYd]u]B^'.LYK$2jS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1474 Lines: 41 * H. Peter Anvin [2008-11-12 15:35]: > > Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * H. Peter Anvin [2008-11-12 11:59]: > >> I want to make sure, though, that we don't just end up pushing the > >> truncation further down in the code. > > > > Well, I think that interface should export the BIOS memmap as provided. > > Since E820 does provide 64 bit addresses, that should get exported. > > > > It should even possible to kexec a PAE kernel from a non PAE kernel ... > > I didn't test, but it could work. But only if the E820 map is correctly > > written in the zero page, which is only the case if we get it correctly. > > That's fine, but we do have to check that we don't truncate elsewhere. What do you mean? That my patch doesn't fix all problems that might exist but are not yet fixed or that my patch introduces new problems? Well, for example in the resource reservation code [e820.c, e820_reserve_resource()] that is handled at line 1285: if (end != (resource_size_t)end) { res++; continue; } My patch only changes the firmware interface, not the architecture specific code. However, I cannot guarantee that it doesn't break something, but what action do you expect from me that the patch is taken? Regards, Bernhard -- 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/