From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263571AbTJQRop (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:44:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263572AbTJQRop (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:44:45 -0400 Received: from 208.177.141.226.ptr.us.xo.net ([208.177.141.226]:34073 "HELO ash.lnxi.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263571AbTJQRol (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:44:41 -0400 Subject: remove unnecessary BIOS reserved resources From: Thayne Harbaugh Reply-To: tharbaugh@lnxi.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Eric Biederman Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-p9GkyyrpvzN8JvUdKn26" Organization: Linux Networx Message-Id: <1066412413.6281.12.camel@tubarao> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 17 Oct 2003 11:40:13 -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-p9GkyyrpvzN8JvUdKn26 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable e820 BIOS reserved memory ranges can be incorrect. Even when the ranges are correct, once they are entered into iomem_resource with request_resorce() the ranges prevent drivers from registering the same ranges. Not registering the ranges shouldn't break anything - some BIOSes don't even report _any_ reserved ranges and the kernel works just fine. This patch drops registration of e820 BIOS reserved ranges. The patch should apply to 2.4.x and 2.6. --- linux-2.4.20/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c 2002-11-28 16:53:09.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.4.20-bs/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c 2003-10-17 12:01:12.000000000 -0600 @@ -1047,7 +1047,6 @@ case E820_RAM: res->name =3D "System RAM"; break; case E820_ACPI: res->name =3D "ACPI Tables"; break; case E820_NVS: res->name =3D "ACPI Non-volatile Storage"; break; - default: res->name =3D "reserved"; } res->start =3D e820.map[i].addr; res->end =3D res->start + e820.map[i].size - 1; Anyone have reasons why this shouldn't be applied? --=20 Thayne Harbaugh Linux Networx --=-p9GkyyrpvzN8JvUdKn26 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/kCl9fsBPTKE6HMkRAsLIAJkBBtRjX0wBWqYbPwnSxJgdJPxcVwCfcZNT eygV7cM6F5yINNKK1CesxKs= =lyYI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-p9GkyyrpvzN8JvUdKn26--