Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 22:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > 
> > Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now
> > and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down
> > allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is,
> > I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to
> > revisit that a bit.
> > 
> > That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a
> > perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-)
> > 
> 
> On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be
> reserved, at least for the forseeable future.  Other architectures may
> very well have non-special RAM there.

Right, that's my point. Anyways, I'm making 0 special for now and adding
a wart to prevent the allocator from returning something below
PAGE_SIZE. If we want to revisit that later we can.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/