* Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > This is_e820_ram() factoring out becomes really messy in patch #3. > > > > So you left out a bunch of places making comparisons with E820_RAM, > > notably e820_reserve_resources_late() and memblock_x86_fill() - and of > > course those have to be left out, otherwise NVRAM might be registered > > and used as real kernel RAM! > > > > And this shows the weakness and confusion caused by the factoring out > > of is_e820_ram() and then adding E820_PMEM to its definition... > > > > I'd rather you add explicit checks to E820_PMEM (why not E820_PRAM, to > > keep in line with the E820_RAM name?), and not lie about > > is_e820_ram(). It should result in the exact same end result, with > > less confusion. > > > > I have no fundamental objections to the driver otherwise. > > Does this patch (replaces patches 2 and 3) look better to you? Yeah, the code is much clearer now: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> What tree is this intended for? Should I pick up the x86 bits? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
