On 09/27/2010 04:32 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 09/27/2010 04:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 09/27/2010 04:20 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> >>> x86 own version for find_area? >>> >> >> No, double no. >> >> Same kind of crap: overloading an interface with semantics it shouldn't >> have. The right thing is to introduce a new interface with carries the >> explicitly needed policy with it... e.g. memblock_find_in_range_lowest(). >> >> That interface would have the explicit semantics of returning the lowest >> possible address, as opposed to any suitable address (which may change >> if policy requirements change.) >> >> The other question is why does kexec need this in the first place? Is >> this due to a design bug in kexec or is there some fundamental reason >> for this? > > bzImage is used here. so need range below 4g. > OK, so why don't you cap the range to 4 GiB and then pass that down to the existing interface? That's different from "lowest possible address". -hpa
