From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/2] x86: add support for the
 non-standard protected e820 type
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:54:04 -0600
Message-ID: <1428094444.31093.122.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
References: <1427872339-6688-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
	 <1427872339-6688-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
	 <1428077687.31093.120.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
	 <CAE9FiQXg0DZ3oCGmPk+qubwQ_=9LLMrZTJqN6HPn0t+5Vs8+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQXg0DZ3oCGmPk+qubwQ_=9LLMrZTJqN6HPn0t+5Vs8+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 10:12 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:12 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >   :
> >> @@ -748,7 +758,7 @@ u64 __init early_reserve_e820(u64 size, u64 align)
> >>  /*
> >>   * Find the highest page frame number we have available
> >>   */
> >> -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
> >> +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn)
> >>  {
> >>       int i;
> >>       unsigned long last_pfn = 0;
> >> @@ -759,7 +769,11 @@ static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
> >>               unsigned long start_pfn;
> >>               unsigned long end_pfn;
> >>
> >> -             if (ei->type != type)
> >> +             /*
> >> +              * Persistent memory is accounted as ram for purposes of
> >> +              * establishing max_pfn and mem_map.
> >> +              */
> >> +             if (ei->type != E820_RAM && ei->type != E820_PRAM)
> >>                       continue;
> >
> > Should we also delete this code, accounting E820_PRAM as ram, along with
> > the deletion of reserve_pmem() in this version?
> 
> should revert those end_of_ram change as attached.

I confirmed that the pmem driver works with the change, and last_pfn is
updated as expected.

Thanks,
-Toshi