Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:17:27 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7u1 21/31] x86, kexec: only set ident mapping for ram. | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:46:17PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >> We should not set mapping for all under max_pfn. >> > >> > "We should not establish mappings for all memory under max_pfn." >> >> that is not accurate. >> >> We should not set mapping for all range under max_pfn. >> >> or >> >> We should set mappings only for memory ranges under max_pfn. > > Ok, that last thing is getting close. So do I understand it correctly > now: > > "We should establish mappings only for memory (memory which is not > marked reserved or whatever by E820 or some other mechanism) under > max_pfn." > > ?
yes, you got it.
--- We should set mappings only for usable memory ranges under max_pfn Otherwise causes same problem that is fixed by
x86, mm: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
This patch exposes pfn_mapped array, and only sets ident mapping for ranges in that array.
This patch relies on new kernel_ident_mapping_init that could handle existing pgd/pud between different calls.
--- > >> >> That causes same problem that is fixed by >> > >> > "Otherwise, it causes the same ..." >> > >> >> >> >> x86, mm: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM >> > >> > You could add this patch's commit id since it is in tip:x86/mm2 and it >> > shouldn't change: 66520ebc2df3. >> >> why ? they are not in linus tree yet, so it could change if that tip >> branch is rebased. > > Oh, you didn't know: tip branches don't get rebased. At least almost > never.
hpa rebased x86/mm2 one time with my patchset according to request from Ingo.
| |