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

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 04:42:17PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > In theory they should be the same. What do you think is different?
> > in practice the x86-64 version returns "success" if there is one byte in the entire
> > memory range that complies with the requested type, even if the rest of the range is
> > of another type. What the ideal is for the purpose here is "is the entire range reserved",
> > but for now I'll settle for "is the start address reserved".
> >
> > (and yes you can express the "is the start address reserved" as a question to the current function for
> > a 1 byte range, I probably should do that I suppose)
>
> or why not check
>
> if (type == ei->type && start >= ei->addr && end <= (ei->addr + ei->size))
> 	return 1;
>
> will this make the range check check stricter?

that's not going to cut it; you can have 2 e820 entries that together span the range
-
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/