On 09/27/2010 05:53 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > Actually, hardcoding the upper limit to 4G is probably not the best idea. > Kexec loads the the relocatable binary (purgatory) and I remember that > one of the generated relocation type was signed 32 bit and allowed max value > to be 2G only. So IIRC, purgatory code always needed to be loaded below 2G. > > I liked HPA's other idea better of introducing memblock_find_in_range_lowest() > so that we search bottom up and not rely on a specific upper limit. > No, it's just another crappy hack which is broken in the same way. It's better than open-coding, but it's still a hack. The Right Thing[TM] to do is for kexec to communicate the topmost address it wants to this code, so it has both the upper and the lower boundaries available to it instead of just one. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
