On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 08:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > So why not simply do the patch below? Very few people use boot > parameters, and the > complexity does not seem to be worth it. > > Furthermore I think an IMR range in itself is safe enough - it's not > like such > register state is going to be randomly corrupted, even with the > 'lock' bit unset. Hi Ingo. I agree - to flip the lock bit you need to be in ring-0 anyway. > So it's a perfectly fine protective measure against accidental memory > corruption > from the DMA space. It should not try to be more than that. > > And once we do this, I suggest we get rid of the 'lock' parameter > altogether - > that will further simplify the code. > > Thanks, > > Ingo That was the V1 of this patch https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/6ZuVOF3TJow Andriy asked for the boot parameter to control the state of the IMR lock bit, I'm just as happy to go back to that version TBH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
