On 01/12/17 at 04:15pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Hello Dave, > > On 12 January 2017 at 09:41, Dave Young <dyo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > There are memory ranges like below when I testing early efi_mem_reserve: > > > > efi: mem62: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > efi: mem63: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > efi: mem64: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > efi: mem65: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > efi: mem66: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > efi: mem67: [Reserved | | | | | | | | | | | | ] > > range=[0x0000000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] (0MB) > > > > Did you spot Peter's patch to prune invalid memmap entries? > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git/commit/?h=next&id=b2a91a35445229 > > I would expect this patch to no longer be necessary with that in place, no?
Ard, good suggestion, I did not notice that patch, will try. Actually I'm not sure about fake_mem handling, if we can filter out the invalid ranges then it will be natural to drop this one after a test. Thanks Dave
