* Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> [2007-10-15 20:32]:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:50:43 +0200
> Bernhard Walle <bwalle at suse.de> wrote:
>
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820_32.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820_32.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ struct resource code_resource = {
> > .flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_MEM
> > };
> >
> > +struct resource bss_resource = {
> > + .name = "Kernel bss",
> > + .start = 0,
> > + .end = 0,
> > + .flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_MEM
> > +};
> > +
> > static struct resource system_rom_resource = {
> > .name = "System ROM",
> > .start = 0xf0000,
> > @@ -287,6 +294,7 @@ legacy_init_iomem_resources(struct resou
> > */
> > request_resource(res, code_resource);
> > request_resource(res, data_resource);
> > + request_resource(res, &bss_resource);
>
> Looks ungainly, doesn't it? Perhaps we should add a third arg to
> legacy_init_iomem_resources(), or change legacy_init_iomem_resources() to
> take zero args?
Yes. But when we change legacy_init_iomem_resources(), then we should
also change efi_initialize_iomem_resources(). But that's declared in
<linux/efi.h> and so a change in ia64 code is required which I wanted
to avoid.
But that patch is for review of the idea. If nobody has objections,
then I'll implement the IA64 change anyway -- and then the 3rd
parameter can be added.
Thanks,
Bernhard
