Re: [patch 1/2] Add BSS to resource tree

[Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2007-10-15 20:32]:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:50:43 +0200
> Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820_32.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820_32.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ struct resource code_resource = {
> >  	.flags	= IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_MEM
> >  };
> >  
> > +struct resource bss_resource = {
> > +	.name	= "Kernel bss",
> > +	.start	= 0,
> > +	.end	= 0,
> > +	.flags	= IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_MEM
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct resource system_rom_resource = {
> >  	.name	= "System ROM",
> >  	.start	= 0xf0000,
> > @@ -287,6 +294,7 @@ legacy_init_iomem_resources(struct resou
> >  			 */
> >  			request_resource(res, code_resource);
> >  			request_resource(res, data_resource);
> > +			request_resource(res, &bss_resource);
> 
> Looks ungainly, doesn't it?  Perhaps we should add a third arg to
> legacy_init_iomem_resources(), or change legacy_init_iomem_resources() to
> take zero args?  

Yes. But when we change legacy_init_iomem_resources(), then we should
also change efi_initialize_iomem_resources(). But that's declared in
<linux/efi.h> and so a change in ia64 code is required which I wanted
to avoid.

But that patch is for review of the idea. If nobody has objections,
then I'll implement the IA64 change anyway -- and then the 3rd
parameter can be added.


Thanks,
   Bernhard
-
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/