>
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> On 05/25/2010 03:34 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>>>
>>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/13/2010 02:55 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that too, and wondered why e820_saved did not
>>>>> have the extra entries. The comment indicates it
>>>>> should.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm on the system tonight and will investigate this
>>>>> further.
>>>>>
>>>> e820_saved lacks the extra entries because they aren't being passed in
>>>> from the bootloader, as they should, and instead you're using
>>>> add_efi_memmap which is, as far as the kernel is concerned, a post-boot
>>>> modification.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, add_efi_memmap does come from the firmware, and as such
>>>> it would be legitimate for it to add them to e820_saved.
>>>>
>>>> -hpa
>>>
>>> Did this last patch meet expectations?
>>>
>>>
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127474230623061&w=4
>>>
>>
>> I'm concerned about calling sanitize_e820_map() on e820_saved; it is
>> supposed to reflect the raw data as reported by the source, and
>> sanitizing it would corrupt that.
>>
>> -hpa
>
> I wondered about that. Sanitize seems to remove adjacent
> entries, etc. making the map smaller, but I couldn't detect
> any real differences (though admittedly I didn't do a byte
> by byte comparison.)
>
> But I'll submit another with that call removed.
