From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add support for the non-standard protected e820 type Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:02:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20150326080235.GB26540@lst.de> References: <1427299449-26722-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1427299449-26722-4-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B40295A8429FC@G9W0745.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com" , "boaz@plexistor.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" To: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B40295A8429FC@G9W0745.americas.hpqcorp.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 07:47:26PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: > If this goes into the kernel, I think someone should request that the > ACPI specification mark the value 12 as permanently tainted. Otherwise > they could assign it to some new meaning that conflicts with all > of this. I think reusing it now would create huge problems, but I have no idea to how to even talk to the people writing the ACPI spec. > It can be confusing that E820h type values differ from UEFI > memory map type values, so it might be worth emphasizing that is > an E820h type value. > > Showing hex alongside would also clarify that it is indeed a > decimal 12. > > Suggestion: "e820 type 12 (0xc)" I've fixed this as well as the various typos.