From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756332AbYFPRG5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:06:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754125AbYFPRGu (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:06:50 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:35322 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752458AbYFPRGt (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <48569D62.9050107@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:05:38 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: ying.huang@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, steiner@sgi.com, travis@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86 boot: allow overlapping ebda and efi memmap memory ranges References: <20080616062945.14597.78009.sendpatchset@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <20080616063001.14597.96170.sendpatchset@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <1213600062.11185.13.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080616032457.718f4d87.pj@sgi.com> <1213606435.12968.14.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <48568B56.7060307@zytor.com> <20080616113806.2ff4c1a4.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080616113806.2ff4c1a4.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jackson wrote: > hpa wrote: >> Realistically, we need the infrastructure to be able to make paranoia >> reservations, and you need to be able to deal with later finding they >> are actually in use. > > While the tone of your reply sounds like something I would naturally > agree with, I can't actually figure out what you mean in this case ;). > > In particular, Peter, would you agree/disagree/other with the direction > that Huang and I agreed to last night: > >> Would you recommend doing this with code in arch/x86/kernel/head.c, >> that did not invoke reserve_ebda_region() if efi_enabled was set? I disagree with it, I do not consider it safe. I think you have to consider the difference between a "safety reservation" and a "actual reservation", with the latter being allowed to overlap the former. -hpa