On 31/01/19 14:03, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> 
> One option here would be to add 'e820__mapped_raw_any' (or whatever 
> other name) and make it identical to the current implementation of 
> e820__mapped_any at. Would that be slightly more acceptable? :)

Yes, of course it would (for me at least :)).

Paolo

Reply via email to