On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:59:28PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> What do you want to get here?
>
> You did not modify memblock_x86_fill() to treat
> E820_PRAM as E820_RAM, so memblock will not have any
> entry for E820_PRAM, so you do not need to call memblock_reserve
> there.
>
> And the same
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:59:28PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
What do you want to get here?
You did not modify memblock_x86_fill() to treat
E820_PRAM as E820_RAM, so memblock will not have any
entry for E820_PRAM, so you do not need to call memblock_reserve
there.
And the same time,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
...
> Does this patch (replaces patches 2 and 3) look better to you?
>
> ---
> From
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:43 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > > +#define E820_PRAM12
> >
> > Why the PRAM Name. For one 2/3 of this patch say PMEM the Kconfig
> > to enable is _PMEM_, the driver stack that gets loaded is
org; linux-
> fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; x...@kernel.org;
> ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com; ax...@kernel.dk
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: add a is_e820_ram() helper
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > > + memmap=nn[KMG
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > + memmap=nn[KMG]!ss[KMG]
> > + [KNL,X86] Mark specific memory as protected.
> > + Region of memory to be used, from ss to ss+nn.
> > + The memory region may be marked as e820
On 03/26/2015 11:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
<>
Please re-post this patch stand alone because git am on this will
Give me the wrong title and commit message
small comments ...
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:24:11 +0100
> Subject: x86: add support for the non-standard
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> btw., there's half a dozen block drivers in arch/* platform code, so
> in theory even the block driver could be merged there - but I agree
> that it's much cleaner and more generic in drivers/block/.
The block driver isn't really
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, the code is much clearer now:
> >
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
> >
> > What tree is this intended for? Should I pick up the x86 bits?
>
> The x86 bits really need to go through the x86 tree.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yeah, the code is much clearer now:
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
>
> What tree is this intended for? Should I pick up the x86 bits?
The x86 bits really need to go through the x86 tree. The pmem driver
itself would normally go
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
> >
> > So you left out a bunch of places making comparisons with E820_RAM,
> > notably e820_reserve_resources_late() and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
>
> So you left out a bunch of places making comparisons with E820_RAM,
> notably e820_reserve_resources_late() and memblock_x86_fill() - and of
> course those have
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This will allow to deal with persistent memory which needs to be
> treated like ram in many, but not all cases.
>
> Based on an earlier patch from Dave Jiang .
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> Tested-by: Ross Zwisler
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 15
* Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
So you left out a bunch of places making comparisons with E820_RAM,
notably e820_reserve_resources_late() and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Yeah, the code is much clearer now:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org
What tree is this intended for? Should I pick up the x86 bits?
The x86 bits really need to go through the x86 tree. The pmem driver
itself would
* Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
This will allow to deal with persistent memory which needs to be
treated like ram in many, but not all cases.
Based on an earlier patch from Dave Jiang dave.ji...@intel.com.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Tested-by: Ross Zwisler
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
So you left out a bunch of places making comparisons with E820_RAM,
notably e820_reserve_resources_late() and memblock_x86_fill() - and of
course those have to be
* Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:04:13AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Yeah, the code is much clearer now:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org
What tree is this intended for? Should I pick up the x86 bits?
The x86 bits really need to go through
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
btw., there's half a dozen block drivers in arch/* platform code, so
in theory even the block driver could be merged there - but I agree
that it's much cleaner and more generic in drivers/block/.
The block driver isn't really
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
+ memmap=nn[KMG]!ss[KMG]
+ [KNL,X86] Mark specific memory as protected.
+ Region of memory to be used, from ss to ss+nn.
+ The memory region may be marked as e820 type 12
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:43 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
+#define E820_PRAM12
Why the PRAM Name. For one 2/3 of this patch say PMEM the Kconfig
to enable is _PMEM_, the driver stack that gets loaded is pmem,
so
...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; x...@kernel.org;
ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com; ax...@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: add a is_e820_ram() helper
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:49:38PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
+ memmap=nn[KMG]!ss[KMG]
+ [KNL,X86] Mark specific
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3.
...
Does this patch (replaces patches 2 and 3) look better to you?
---
From
On 03/26/2015 11:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Please re-post this patch stand alone because git am on this will
Give me the wrong title and commit message
small comments ...
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:24:11 +0100
Subject: x86: add support for the
24 matches
Mail list logo
