On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Or are we just (again) the only platform where (a) physical memory doesn't
start at zero and (b) we want to use initrd?
A few archs set initrd_below_start_ok probably because of this.
Setting min_low_pfn to some random value, which makes it inconsistent with
max_low_pfn isn't the real solution.
The real problem is in main.c, it should use virt_to_pfn(initrd_start) for
this check and everywhere where min_low_pfn is zero the behaviour is
unchanged, so an email to linux-arch should be sufficient, so other archs
can check their initrd beheviour and eventually they don't even need the
initrd_below_start_ok hack anymore (which should only really be needed if
the initrd is e.g. located in a ROM).
Yeah, I was also wondering whether this was the reason several archs set
initrd_below_start_ok...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
