iBFT update for 2.6.34-rc3
Subsystems (2)
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
maintainerHey Linus,
Please pull the following change since commit: 2eaa9cfdf33b8d7fb7aff27792192e0019ae8fc6:
Linus Torvalds (1):
Linux 2.6.34-rc3
which is available in the git repository at:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/ibft-2.6.git ibft-fixes
Yinghai Lu (1):
ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft_find.c | 11 ++++++++--- include/linux/iscsi_ibft.h | 8 ++++++-- 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
maintainerPATCH 1/1 ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
From: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
So arch code could decide the way to reserve the ibft.
And We should reserve ibft as early as possible, instead of BOOTMEM stage, in case the table is in RAM range and is not reserved by BIOS.
move that just sfter find_smp_config()
Also when CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=y, We will not have reserve_bootmem() anymore
-v2: fix typo about ibft pointed by Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>
--- arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft_find.c | 11 ++++++++--- include/linux/iscsi_ibft.h | 8 ++++++-- 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +12 -2
@@ -608,6 +608,16 @@ static int __init setup_elfcorehdr(char *arg)early_param ("elfcorehdr" , setup_elfcorehdr);#endif +static __init void reserve_ibft_region (void ) +{ +unsigned long addr, size =0 ; + + addr =find_ibft_region (&size); + +if (size) +reserve_early_overlap_ok (addr, addr + size,"ibft" ); +} +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_RESERVE_LOW_64K static int __init dmi_low_memory_corruption (const struct dmi_system_id *d) {
@@ -910,6 +920,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)*/ find_smp_config (); +reserve_ibft_region (); +reserve_trampoline_memory ();#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
@@ -977,8 +989,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)dma32_reserve_bootmem (); -reserve_ibft_region (); -#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK kvmclock_init ();#endif
drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft_find.c +8 -3
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ibft_addr);* Routine used to find the iSCSI Boot Format Table. The logical * kernel address is set in the ibft_addr global variable. */ -void __init reserve_ibft_region (void ) +unsigned long __init find_ibft_region (unsigned long *sizep) {unsigned long pos;unsigned int len =0 ;
@@ -78,6 +78,11 @@ void __init reserve_ibft_region(void) } } } -if (ibft_addr) -reserve_bootmem (pos,PAGE_ALIGN (len),BOOTMEM_DEFAULT ); +if (ibft_addr) { + *sizep =PAGE_ALIGN (len); +return pos; + } + + *sizep =0 ; +return 0 ; }
include/linux/iscsi_ibft.h +6 -2
@@ -42,9 +42,13 @@ extern struct ibft_table_header *ibft_addr;* mapped address is set in the ibft_addr variable. */ #ifdef CONFIG_ISCSI_IBFT_FIND -extern void __init reserve_ibft_region (void ); +unsigned long find_ibft_region (unsigned long *sizep);#else -static inline void reserve_ibft_region (void ) { } +static inline unsigned long find_ibft_region (unsigned long *sizep) +{ + *sizep =0 ; +return 0 ; +}#endif #endif /* ISCSI_IBFT_H */
Signature · 1 line
1.6.2.5
Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
Quoted 5 lines · Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
So arch code could decide the way to reserve the ibft.
And We should reserve ibft as early as possible, instead of BOOTMEM stage, in case the table is in RAM range and is not reserved by BIOS.
For all I know this is all perfectly fine, but I have _no_ idea about how ibft is supposed to work, so I can't really judge it. As a result, I won't pull it without some more acks from people who actually know what that thing is..
Linus
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
Quoted 6 lines · Linus Torvalds
Quoted 3 lines · Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
So arch code could decide the way to reserve the ibft.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
And We should reserve ibft as early as possible, instead of BOOTMEM stage, in case the table is in RAM range and is not reserved by BIOS.
For all I know this is all perfectly fine, but I have _no_ idea about how ibft is supposed to work, so I can't really judge it. As a result, I won't pull it without some more acks from people who actually know what that thing is..
Oh, I am definitely ACK-ing. Sorry about not explicitly stating that. The developer is Yinghai Lu, I am the co-maintainer of the iBFT driver.
Linus, would you like me to modify the commit so that it has 'Acked-by:' by me in the git tree?
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
maintainerRe: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
For all I know this is all perfectly fine, but I have _no_ idea about how ibft is supposed to work, so I can't really judge it. As a result, I won't pull it without some more acks from people who actually know what that thing is..
Oh, I am definitely ACK-ing. Sorry about not explicitly stating that. The developer is Yinghai Lu, I am the co-maintainer of the iBFT driver.
Linus, would you like me to modify the commit so that it has 'Acked-by:' by me in the git tree?
I've gone ahead and done that. The git tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/ibft-2.6.git
ibft-fixes.acked
has the patch that was acked (and reviewed + tested on my iBFT rig) by me.
(The ibft-fixes has the old commit, with the Signed-off-by instead of Acked-by).
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
In reply to Konrad Rzeszutek WilkQuoted 6 lines · Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Oh, I am definitely ACK-ing. Sorry about not explicitly stating that. The developer is Yinghai Lu, I am the co-maintainer of the iBFT driver.
Linus, would you like me to modify the commit so that it has 'Acked-by:' by me in the git tree?
No, no, a sign-off is already an ack, and is "stronger" than an ack, since it actually also means that you send it onwards. A patch that you don't like you would obviously never sign off on either.
I was more looking for comments from other people who know what the heck that early reservation system does.
Linus
Peter Jones
maintainerRe: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
Quoted 10 lines · Linus Torvalds
Quoted 6 lines · Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Oh, I am definitely ACK-ing. Sorry about not explicitly stating that. The developer is Yinghai Lu, I am the co-maintainer of the iBFT driver.
Linus, would you like me to modify the commit so that it has 'Acked-by:' by me in the git tree?
Quoted 6 lines
No, no, a sign-off is already an ack, and is "stronger" than an ack, since it actually also means that you send it onwards. A patch that you don't like you would obviously never sign off on either.
I was more looking for comments from other people who know what the heck that early reservation system does.
Just for the record, it also looks good to me (the other co-maintainer), so:
But obviously that doesn't actually constitute the acks you were /looking/ for.
Signature · 4 lines
Peter What we need is either less corruption, or more chances to participate in it.
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()
In reply to Linus TorvaldsQuoted 10 lines · Linus Torvalds
Quoted 6 lines · Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Oh, I am definitely ACK-ing. Sorry about not explicitly stating that. The developer is Yinghai Lu, I am the co-maintainer of the iBFT driver.
Linus, would you like me to modify the commit so that it has 'Acked-by:' by me in the git tree?
Quoted 6 lines
No, no, a sign-off is already an ack, and is "stronger" than an ack, since it actually also means that you send it onwards. A patch that you don't like you would obviously never sign off on either.
I was more looking for comments from other people who know what the heck that early reservation system does.
the patched is in mainline already in mainline through tip path by HPA.
Thanks
Yinghai