On 05/19/2010 10:40 AM, Yinghai wrote: > On 05/18/2010 10:35 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote: >> Does it make sense to prevent looking for stolen RAM below the ISA section. >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Rondonneau <mathieu.rondonneau@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> index 7bca3c6..322c9c3 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> @@ -1156,6 +1156,8 @@ void __init e820_reserve_resources_late(void) >> end = MAX_RESOURCE_SIZE; >> if (start >= end) >> continue; >> + if (end < ISA_START_ADDRESS) >> + continue; >> printk(KERN_DEBUG "reserve RAM buffer: %016llx - %016llx ", >> start, end); >> reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, start, end, > > do you notice any changes in /proc/iomem? > It should be harmless to reserve memory which is already reserved, so this patch is at best a no-op. Furthermore, it introduces another instance of special address space (ISA_START_ADDRESS in this case) which is never a good thing. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
