Re: [patch] Ignore MCFG if the mmconfig area isn't reserved in thee820 table

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Friday 24 March 2006 16:24, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:15:19AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>    >
> >>    > I'll do a new patch using this for x86_64 though, no need to make a
> >>    > second function like this.
> >>
> >>     int  __init  e820_mapped(unsigned  long  start,  unsigned  long  end,
> >>    unsigned type)
> > 
> > 
> > Why not use the same type of function like x86_64 as well instead of the newly
> > added is_820_mapped()? If the purpose of both functions is the same, i386 could benefit 
> > with same style code instead of a slight variant.
> 
> the purpose is not the same. the e820_mapped function is far less strict in its check
> (I'm still afraid it is too weak for this purpose actually)

In theory they should be the same. What do you think is different?

> 
> and it's not is_e820_mapped but is_e820_reserved()

That's just a special case.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/