From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] x86/boot/e820: Introduce e820_table_ori to represent the real original e820 layout
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:40:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170622094030.7ge2g2wsvpc6lx5r@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8082eab4271cfea6f47d190613d09fd3faa9563e.1497675876.git.yu.c.chen@intel.com>
* Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Currently we try to have e820_table_firmware to represent the
> original firmware memory layout passed to us by the bootloader,
> however it is not the case, the e820_table_firmware might still
> be modified by linux:
> 1. During bootup, the efi boot stub might allocate memory via
> efi service for the PCI device information structure, then
> later e820_reserve_setup_data() reserved these dynamically
> allocated structures(AKA, setup_data) in e820_table_firmware
> accordingly.
> 2. The kexec might also modify the e820_table_firmware.
Hm, so why does the EFI code modify e280_table_firmware - why doesn't
it modify e820_table?
I.e. what is the point of having 3 different versions of the
memory layout table?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-22 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-17 5:21 [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Introduce e820_table_ori to fix the memory inconsistent problem during hibernation Chen Yu
2017-06-17 5:22 ` [PATCH 1/2][RFC] x86/boot/e820: Introduce e820_table_ori to represent the real original e820 layout Chen Yu
2017-06-22 9:40 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-06-23 4:13 ` Chen Yu
2017-06-23 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-02 17:01 ` Chen Yu
2017-06-17 5:23 ` [PATCH 2/2][RFC] PM / hibernate: Utilize the original e820 map for consistent check Chen Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170622094030.7ge2g2wsvpc6lx5r@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).