* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:well, that's what your EBDA descriptor says - it's set to 9fc00 which is 512 bytes below the VGA range. This behavior didnt really change over v2.6.24 (which reserved 'into' the VGA range too), it's just that in v2.6.25 we also print out these early reservations. Can you see any regression? There should be no harm from overlapping into the VGA range - these "reservations" only make RAM unavailable for normal allocations. your patch on the other hand rounds the EBDA area down which could in theory be unsafe on other boxes (where there could be real RAM above the EBDA area): the safest approach is to round the beginning of it down, the end of it up (to page boundary). Your patch _should_ be OK, but in practice it doesnt hurt to reserve a bit more around the edges than to accidentally give a page to the OS that the BIOS might rely upon. Ingo --
| James Bruce | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Josip Rodin | bnx2_poll panicking kernel |
