Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now
> and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down
> allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is,
> I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to
> revisit that a bit.
> 
> That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a
> perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-)
> 

On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be
reserved, at least for the forseeable future.  Other architectures may
very well have non-special RAM there.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/