Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory

["Jan-Simon Möller" <dl9pf@gmx.de>]

Am Samstag 08 März 2008 12:13:01 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > as i said it in another reply to this thread, it would be perfectly
> > > acceptable for upstream to merge an easier to use boot option - be
> > > that badmem=addr$size or excludemem=addr$size. Please send a patch :-)
> >
> > It already called:
> > 	memmap=addr$size
> > ... and has been implemented for years.  Does the badram patch do
> > anything different?  (And yes, I agree the $/@/# is ugly.)
>
> I admit that I haven't examined badram too closely, but I think that what
> it has in addition to what you can get by simple 'memmap=..' is that it
> allows you to use bitmasks to mask particular address patterns.

I had once a bad ram-module and even after heavy search didn't came across 
memmap or its usage. Together with memtest86 badram= is pretty usable.
So for usability's sake i strongly vote for badram=  - good name, quite good 
to use. If you wanna tune on the internal implementation - thats fine ;) .

Best regards
Jan-Simon