On Fri, 13 Jan, at 05:29:52AM, Dave Young wrote: > > It sounds reasonable though I'm still not sure about EFI_LOADER*. > > The main purpose of this patch is to address the invalid mem ranges > case. As Ard mentioned I will test with Peter's patch first, if it works > fine I would like to either drop this patch as a future improvement or add > it at the end of the next post. > > Matt, what's your opinion about the boot_only check and the EFI_LOADERS* > question? The main reason that efi_mem_reserve() isn't used for EFI_LOADER regions today is because we already have a mechanism for reserving it via memblock_reserve(), which we do during a very early stage of boot when parsing all the different types of SETUP_* objects. It's questionable whether it would make sense to switch to efi_mem_reserve() for EFI_LOADER regions because then you'd potentially have different APIs for different SETUP_* objects. As things stand today, I would suggest triggering a WARN_ON() if someone tries to efi_mem_reserve() an EFI_LOADER region, until/unless the day comes when a user exists in the kernel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
