From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754975AbbA2QMr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:12:47 -0500
Received: from outbound-smtp01.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.7]:55022 "EHLO
	outbound-smtp01.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751448AbbA2QMq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:12:46 -0500
Message-ID: <54CA5BFC.5030301@nexus-software.ie>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:12:44 +0000
From: "Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@intel.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "dvhart@infradead.org" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000
References: <1422470186-7860-1-git-send-email-pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>	<1422470186-7860-2-git-send-email-pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>	<20150129074411.GA4817@gmail.com> <CAHp75Vfff-C++LWyyK+FWLnot=jO4kQvbDaN9hJ2_VrhG8n2Qg@mail.gmail.com> <54CA0782.8000807@nexus-software.ie> <AF233D1473C1364ABD51D28909A1B1B7327158BE@PGSMSX105.gar.corp.intel.com> <54CA502D.9030307@nexus-software.ie> <AF233D1473C1364ABD51D28909A1B1B732715B43@PGSMSX105.gar.corp.intel.com> <54CA546B.3040704@nexus-software.ie>
In-Reply-To: <54CA546B.3040704@nexus-software.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 29/01/15 15:40, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> It would be nice to have two variants (1) index based & (2) address
>> based.
>
> Understood. The direction from Ingo was to have address based external
> interface imr_del_range() and support an index based internal
> imr_clear() - internally.
>
> So - in order to get test coverage - I'll move the self-test code back
> into the main IMR code
>
> Not as pretty that way - but better coverage :)

Talking to myself in public...

Second (third) thought - there's no advantage to moving the test code 
back in - since imr_add_range() won't return the index anymore...