On 01/30/2013 01:57 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Yes, those seem to be the options, and we're currently discussing which one. >> >> The second seems to make more sense to me. The kexec tools build the >> memory map anyway, and it makes sense to me at least to just build a >> memory map with the appropriate regions marked as a dumpable type. > > This dumpable type doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting making > regions that are memory but that we should not use a special memory > type? Yes. > I think I would prefer that to call that new type RESERVED_MEM or > RESERVED_CACHABLE. Being more specific is fine but dumpable certainly > doesn't bring to mind what we are saying. Especially since we already > communicate which areas were memory to the last kernel in an > architecture generic format. I was thinking that marking them differently might help debugging, at least, but yes, we can have a RESERVED_MEM type. However, Thomas does have a point that the current use of fairly small positive values for Linux-defined types is a bad idea. We should use negative types, or at least something north of 0x40000000 or so. -hpa
