Re: brk patches..

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If the brk is bounded-size on the same order or smaller as the kernel,
> we should just mark it as an unallocated (bss) section in the ELF image
> and be done with it... there really is no point in trying to be smarter
> (we'd be subject to failures to load the kernel proper.)  If the brk is
> significantly bigger, then yes, we need to be smarter.  However, that is
> not my current understanding of the requirements.
>   

Yes, right.  And in my case I actually need it to generate an 
appropriate e820 table, so adding a dependency on e820 would be circular...

(To be specific: I reshape the guest e820 table so that it doesn't have 
memory in any forbidden areas of the host e820 table.  That may require 
moving the pseudo-physical address of pages into a new overflow e820 
entry, which would also require allocating pages for the p2m radix tree.)

   J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/