Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: add max_addr boot option

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 06/12/2012 07:21 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> But now, we know mem= boot option is buggy....it acts as max_addr=
> option, we have concerns that 'someone may fix mem= option as sane as ia64. because
> it's buggy".
> 
> We'd like to fix mem= boot option by ourselves and preserve old behavior
> with max_addr= boot option, which ia64 has.
> 

Now I'm *really* confused.

Realistically, there is no point in the old mem= behavior of assuming a
contiguous chunk of memory up to that point; it simply doesn't match how
modern hardware is constructed.  Your notion that ia64 is "sane" is
probably more of "outdated" in my opinion.

As such, the current behavior for mem= seems like the right thing and
the change was intentional (not to mention has been in place since
kernel 2.5.65, back in 2003); it also solves your requirements.  If you
are concerned about it, it would make more sense to make sure it is
documented as intentional.

In fact, it looks like IA64 introduced a divergence when the max_addr=
patch was introduced in 2004.  You're basically proposing the same
divergence for x86 now; talk about having the tail wag the dog.

Sorry.  NAK.

	-hpa

--
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/