From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Khalid Aziz Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:33:10 +0000 Subject: RE: efi_memmapwalk re-write Message-Id: <1124116390.29568.27.camel@lyra.fc.hp.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 16:48 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > >Here is the updated patch. It incorporates your suggestions. I have left > >kern_memdesc as a linked list as opposed to array. Linked list is little > >more versatile structure and the cost is minimal over an array. Unless > >you feel strongly about using arrays instead of linked list, I would > >prefer to leave it this way. > > Khalid, > > Looking good (from my 2 minute scan, I'll take a better look > later). One question ... why do we need "is_available_memory" > and "is_usable_memory"? They look to be almost the same (except > is_usable... doesn't consider EFI_LOADER_DATA to be usable). I am using is_usable_memory while scanning for space for kern_memdesc structure. Since EFI_LOADER_DATA can contain boot parameters and/or ramdisk, I don't want to allocate any space out of there. is_available_memory calls EFI_LOADER_DATA type memory to be avialble because that memory gets marked reserved any way. > > It doesn't look like is_available_memory needs to be in meminit.h > [in last version of this patch it was used in more than one file, > but now the only usage in in efi.c] You are right. It can be moved to efi.c. > > I'll ponder the linked question ... if you really think the > extra versatility is worthwhile, then I'll consider them ... > but that will raise the issue of why aren't you using the > standard Linux kernel list.h macros. > > -Tony -- Khalid ================================== Khalid Aziz Open Source and Linux Organization (970)898-9214 Hewlett-Packard khalid.aziz@hp.com Fort Collins, CO "The Linux kernel is subject to relentless development" - Alessandro Rubini