* 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 memblock_x86_fill() - and of
> > course those have to be left out, otherwise NVRAM might be registered
> > and used as real kernel RAM!
> >
> > And this shows the weakness and confusion caused by the factoring out
> > of is_e820_ram() and then adding E820_PMEM to its definition...
> >
> > I'd rather you add explicit checks to E820_PMEM (why not E820_PRAM, to
> > keep in line with the E820_RAM name?), and not lie about
> > is_e820_ram(). It should result in the exact same end result, with
> > less confusion.
> >
> > I have no fundamental objections to the driver otherwise.
>
> Does this patch (replaces patches 2 and 3) look better to you?
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?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
