Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 27/09/07 15:47 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>> Breaks on the Geode - original behavior.
>>>
>>> I think that having boot_prams.e820_entries != 0 makes the kernel
>>> assume the e820 data is correct.
>>>
>> Okay, now I'm utterly baffled how 2.6.22 ever worked on this Geode,
>> because this, to the best of my reading, mimics the 2.6.22 behavior
>> exactly. DID IT REALLY, and/or did you make any kind of configuration
>> changes?
>
> I copied in a 2.6.22 kernel to see that it really did work, and it did.
> But here's the crazy part - I did a dmesg, and it looks like it
> *is* using e820 data, and it looks complete (I see the entire map -
> including the ACPI and reserved blocks way up high).
>
> So apparently it was the 2.6.22 code that was buggy, but reading it,
> I don't immediately see how.
>
Oh bugger, looks like this one might be genuinely my fault after all.
The ID check in the new code is buggy.
Can you please test this revised patch out (against current -git)?
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/i386/boot/memory.c b/arch/i386/boot/memory.c
index bccaa1c..84939b7 100644
--- a/arch/i386/boot/memory.c
+++ b/arch/i386/boot/memory.c
@@ -34,17 +34,7 @@ static int detect_memory_e820(void)
"=m" (*desc)
: "D" (desc), "a" (0xe820));
- /* Some BIOSes stop returning SMAP in the middle of
- the search loop. We don't know exactly how the BIOS
- screwed up the map at that point, we might have a
- partial map, the full map, or complete garbage, so
- just return failure. */
- if (id != SMAP) {
- count = 0;
- break;
- }
-
- if (err)
+ if (id != SMAP || err)
break;
count++;
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
