From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757938AbYFWJLR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:11:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753346AbYFWJLD (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:11:03 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:31147 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752802AbYFWJLA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:11:00 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,689,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="1250837" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 boot: Pass E820 memory map entries more than 128 via linked list of setup data From: "Huang, Ying" To: Paul Jackson Cc: mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, andi@firstfloor.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20080623034728.250c6fd1.pj@sgi.com> References: <1213155219.13392.2.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080618114511.GB28838@elte.hu> <1214200441.25753.5.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080623015326.bec9a75d.pj@sgi.com> <1214205686.26437.18.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080623034728.250c6fd1.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:14:01 +0800 Message-Id: <1214212441.27182.4.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2008 09:10:29.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBA49740:01C8D510] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 03:47 -0500, Paul Jackson wrote: > Huang Ying wrote: > > So, I think it is better to remove "EFI memmap based code". > > You give good reasons for -adding- E820 EXT code. Fine. > > You give no reason for -removing- the EFI memmap based code, > except the implicit (unstated) reason that we should only > support a single mechanism. > > However the kernel routinely supports a variety of mechanisms > for various BIOS firmware, as it should. > > Internally, within the kernel, when it is entirely within the > kernels control and when there is no externally visible kernel > interface affected, we routinely strive to minimize redundant > mechanisms, as we should. > > But externally, such as in supporting various boot firmware > protocols, we routinely support multiple useful interfaces. > > If that EFI memmap based code for > 128 nodes is causing you > no problem, then please leave it be. It is providing us good > benefit. Please fix the following issue, if it is agreed to keep this redundant code in kernel: 4. Current EFI memmap based code does not work properly in all situation, for example it can not works with kernel parameter: "memmap=exactmap, memmap=, ...", "mem=" or "noefi". Best Regards, Huang Ying