On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now > and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down > allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is, > I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to > revisit that a bit. > > That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a > perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-) > On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be reserved, at least for the forseeable future. Other architectures may very well have non-special RAM there. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
