On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 22:57 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 22:15 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 21:44 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: : > > > > > > [...] That said, since the patchset also added a new > > > > nohugeiomap boot option for the same purpose, I agree > > > > that this Kconfig option can be removed. So, I will > > > > remove it in the next version. > > > > > > > > An example of such case is with multiple MTRRs described > > > > in patch 0/7. > > > > > > So the multi-MTRR case should probably be detected and > > > handled safely? > > > > I considered two options to safely handle this case, i.e. > > option A) and B) described in the link below. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/5/638 > > > > I thought about how much complication we should put into > > the code for an imaginable platform with a combination of > > new NVM (or large I/O range) and legacy MTRRs with > > multi-types & contiguous ranges. My thinking is that we > > should go with option C) for simplicity, and implement A) > > or B) later if we find it necessary. > > Well, why not option D): > > D) detect unaligned requests and reject them > That sounds like a good idea! I will work on it. Thanks, -Toshi -- 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>