From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: msalter@redhat.com (Mark Salter)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:22:47 -0500
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64 initrd mapping/relocation
In-Reply-To: <20160202180622.GP10166@arm.com>
References: <1454435802-7604-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20160202180622.GP10166@arm.com>
Message-ID: <1454509367.4108.3.camel@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 18:06 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:56:39PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > After discussing in linux-efi with Mark, and on #armlinux with Will, this is
> > a proposal for dealing with initrd memory that is potentially not covered by
> > the linear region.
> > 
> > Note that this will look slightly differently when some of the KASLR work gets
> > merged, but this should only affect the way we deal with the initrd if it sits
> > outside of the linear region.
> > 
> > Mostly intended for discussion, not tested at all.
> 
> Thanks Ard, this looks like a much better approach to me. Mark -- does
> the general idea work for you too?
> 
> Will

Yeah, much simpler. I like it in concept but am I missing something or is it
adding memory to the system beyond the mem= limit? But even that may not be
a big deal. And I need to look at the KASLR work and understand the issues
with it and mem= if any. I'm traveling right now and can't really try it out
until tomorrow...