From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 boot: Pass E820 memory map entries more than 128 via linked list of setup data
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:47:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080623034728.250c6fd1.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1214205686.26437.18.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
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.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-23 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-11 3:33 [PATCH] x86 boot: Pass E820 memory map entries more than 128 via linked list of setup data Huang, Ying
2008-06-18 11:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-23 5:54 ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-23 6:53 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-23 7:21 ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-23 8:47 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2008-06-23 9:14 ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-23 9:48 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-24 1:09 ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-24 5:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-24 7:03 ` Huang, Ying
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=20080623034728.250c6fd1.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox