On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chen, Yu C <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andy, > thanks for your review, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:00 AM >> To: Zheng, Lv >> Cc: Chen, Yu C; Moore, Robert; Wysocki, Rafael J; Brown, Len; Andy >> Lutomirski; Lv Zheng; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux ACPI; H. Peter >> Anvin; Borislav Petkov >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] ACPI / x86: introduce acpi_os_readable() support >> > [cut] >> >> I think that hpa or Borislav [cc'd] could address the memory map details >> better than I could. However, this functionality seems strange. >> >> Are these physical addresses or virtual addresses that are being dumped? > [Yu] They are virtual addresses to be dumped. >> In either case, ISTM that using something iike page_is_ram might be a lot >> simpler. > [Yu] if i understand correctly, this API is used to check if the address is a valid > 'kmalloc' style address, but not 'kmap' or 'vmalloc' address, and page_is_ram > might treat the latter as valid address? > I'm a bit puzzled as to why this matters, but I have no fundamental objection to doing it that way. What's the use case, though? That is, what goes wrong if the function just always returns false? --Andy > thanks, > Yu -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
