On Mo, 2013-11-04 at 15:35 +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:48:03 +0100 > Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > So maybe design that with memory hotplug in mind? Such as adding a new > > > > qemu-specific type QEMU_RAM_HOTPLUG? Which seabios could use to reserve > > > > the memory (but not add it to the e820 table for the guest)? > > > It will do job too. But extending semantics of standard table would be > > > confusing. Yes, Seabios will filter it out but it doesn't make table > > > less confusing. > > > > Was just thinking that it might be easier that way if we need e820 > > entries for hotplug memory address space _anyway_. > I don't think that we need e820 entries for hotplug memory reserved space as > e820 should. In case present at boot hotpluggable DIMMs would be needed in > E820, > we can add them as usual E820_RAM entries. > > But regardless of what we do here it might be good keep option of adding non > standard entries in future, by filtering out unknown types in SeaBIOS. > > > > > > I'd prefer having a dedicated interface for it as a more clean solution. > > > > Agree. > > So back to naming question, would you agree to renaming fw_cfg to the last > Michael's suggestion "reserved-memory-end"?
Fine with me. cheers, Gerd
