From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:58:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516B9714.80007@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516B87A6.9080708@jp.fujitsu.com>
On 04/14/2013 09:52 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> This sounds like there's no such issue on x86 cache mechanism. Is it
> correct? If so, what is the difference between ia64 and x86 cache
> mechanisms?
I'm just going by the code comments:
drivers/char/mem.c
> /*
> * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as uncached, then
> * it must also be accessed uncached by the kernel or data
> * corruption may occur.
> */
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:58:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516B9714.80007@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516B87A6.9080708@jp.fujitsu.com>
On 04/14/2013 09:52 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> This sounds like there's no such issue on x86 cache mechanism. Is it
> correct? If so, what is the difference between ia64 and x86 cache
> mechanisms?
I'm just going by the code comments:
drivers/char/mem.c
> /*
> * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as uncached, then
> * it must also be accessed uncached by the kernel or data
> * corruption may occur.
> */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-15 5:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-11 12:26 Cleanups and passing memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] kexec: X86: Show e820 table which gets passed in debug mode Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] kexec: X86: Enhance crash range debug output Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] kexec: X86: Do not exclude memory regions in each get_xy_memory_range() func Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] kexec: X86: make crash_memory_range global and store its no of elements in crash_ranges Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 14:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 14:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 15:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-11 15:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-12 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-12 14:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 23:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 23:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 4:52 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 4:52 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 5:58 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2013-04-15 5:58 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-15 7:58 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 7:58 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 14:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 14:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 12:24 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-12 12:24 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-12 9:56 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 11:12 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 9:05 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 12:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 19:48 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 19:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16 7:52 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-16 11:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16 12:41 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 15:24 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-04-15 11:48 ` Thomas Renninger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=516B9714.80007@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.