Re: PATCH: Add memreserve to DTC

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:30:58AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 02:19, David Gibson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Ok, I've merged this, 
> 
> Excellent, thanks!
> 
> > although I've tweaked things substantially in the process.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> >   I did rename "header_tree" to "boot_info", moved some
> 
> Oh, good!
> 
> > things around, and changed the syntax.  Reserve ranges can now be
> > specified either as an address and length:
> > 
> > 	/memreserve/	10000000 00002000;
> > 
> > or as an (inclusive) address range:
> > 
> > 	/memreserve/	10000000-10001fff;
> > 
> > I am a bit worried that those two forms may be hard to distinguish at
> > a glance.  Any sugggestions for changes to the syntax soon please, I'd
> > really like to keep the source syntax as stable as possible.
> 
> Oh man.  With syntax you can demystify those in any number
> of ways.  Just a matter of what you are wanting.  You can
> always add sugar:
> 
>     /memreserve_block/    10000000 00002000;
>     /memreserve_range/    10000000 10001fff;
> 
>     /memreserve/    10000000 /for/     2000;        //  or /size/ ?
>     /memreserve/    10000000 /through/ 10001fff;
> 
>     /memreserve/    10000000 00002000;
>     /memreserve/   [10000000, 10001fff];     // or [10000000, 10002000)?
> 
> Stuff like that maybe?

Hrm.. don't really like any of those better than what I have already,
I'm afraid.  It does occur to me that size > base is going to be a
very rare situation, so the value of the numbers themselves will act
as a reasonable hint as to which form is in use.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson