On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:21:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 23:01, Alexander Graf <g...@amazon.com> wrote: > > So I would personally prefer for this code not to go in at all. But if > it does go in (and Steven has already agreed to this), it needs a > giant disclaimer that it is best effort and may get broken > inadvertently by changes that may seem unrelated.
I think that reserve_mem= is way less intrusive than memmap= we anyway have. It will reserve memory and the documentation adequately warns that the location of that memory might be at different physical addresses. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
