On 11/29/2010 02:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> >>> We might still want a patch like this current one because it could >>> work around some BIOS defects, and because I think it's too late to >>> fix the ACPI resource problem for .37. But I'm not convinced we >>> should reserve more than Windows does, because that may keep us from >>> discovering other important Linux problems. >> >> I'm not so sure about that... it feels like a pretty weak argument that >> we might work on some machines even though our code isn't perfect. > > I think we're talking about whether to reserve the top 1MB or top 2MB. > I freely admit I don't know the right answer. My point is merely that > since we're using a heuristic anyway, copying Windows is a pretty good > starting point. In my mind, doing something different requires a > stronger argument than "it might fix some machines where Windows is > broken." > Of course. I did, however, point out the reason *why* in this case: there are a lot of platforms known (including quite probably *ALL* pre-E820 systems) to decode 2 MiB for the ROM, due to A20 masking. Windows doesn't care about those older systems. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
