On 3/22/24 10:31, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I'd much rather add synthetic entries to the memory maps that have this >> information than hack around it by assuming that things are within a >> gigabyte. > So this change is a partial revert of a change that broke kexec in > existing configurations. To fix a regression that breaks kexec. Let's back up for a second: * Mapping extra memory on UV systems causes halts[1] * Mapping extra memory on UV systems breaks kexec (this thread) So we're in a pickle. I understand your concern for kexec. But I'm concerned that fixing the kexec problem will re-expose us to the [1] problem. Steve, can you explain a bit why this patch doesn't re-expose the kernel to the [1] bug? 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126164841.170866-1-steve.wahl@xxxxxxx/
