On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Err, I don't think you understand what's going on here. > > The sequence is: > > 1. setup the initial mappings so we can run the kernel in virtual space. > 2. provide the memory areas to memblock > 3. ask the platform to reserve whatever memory it wants from memblock > [this means using memblock_reserve or arm_memblock_steal). The > reserved memory is *not* expected to be mapped at this point, and is > therefore inaccessible. > 4. Setup the lowmem mappings. I do understand that pretty well so far. > And when we're setting up the lowmem mappings, we do *not* expect to > create any non-section page mappings, which again means we have no reason > to use the memblock allocator to obtain memory that we want to immediately > use. And why does this have to remain so? > So I don't know where you're claim of being "fragile" is coming from. It doesn't come from anything you've described so far. It comes from those previous attempts at lifting this limitation. I think that my proposal is much less fragile than the other ones. > What is fragile is people wanting to use arm_memblock_steal() without > following the rules for it I layed down. What about enhancing your rules if the technical limitations they were based on are lifted? Nicolas -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>