> > > For the short term, could we simply make your changes dependent on > > > efi != old_map? That gives us some time to fix the old_map case properly. > > > > Yes, I think we could and it should work but I hesitated to propose it > > because (as you already noted) it's a short term fix and not the right fix. > > > > What is the status here?
Making the unmapping code conditional on !old_map is ready and I will send it out. I am working on unmapping boot services code/data when old_map is enabled and ran into issues with memblock and direct mapping in kernel. Will post those details in a separate thread. > > > Alternatively, we could also evaluate if we need to support efi=old_map case > going further. > > I thought dropping it would be a bad idea because it changes kernel > > user visible interface (because it's a kernel command line argument) and > > never > brought it up. > > Not sure what Thomas, Ingo or Linus might think about dropping a > > kernel command line argument. > > > > Dropping a command line argument is not a problem in itself, unless anyone is > actively using it :-) > > As far as I can tell, the SGI x86 UV platforms still rely on this, so we're > stuck with > it for the foreseeable future. Thanks (also Boris) for the info. Makes sense why we need efi=old_map. > > This means we need a fixes that makes your unmapping code conditional on > !old_memmap. Do you have an ETA for that? Sure! I will do some more testing and if it works as expected, will send it before this Sunday. Regards, Sai
