From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:58:25 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] mm: BadRAM support for broken memory Message-Id: <20080303185825.9634f762.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <200803031835.03082.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> References: <2f11576a0803020901n715fda8esbfc0172f5a15ae3c@mail.gmail.com> <200803031632.47888.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080303161025.1E7E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <200803031835.03082.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rick van Rein , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:35:02 +1100 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Monday 03 March 2008 18:14, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > some architecture use PG_reserved for treat bad memory. > > > > Why do you want introduce new page flag? > > > > for show_mem() improvement? > > > > > > I'd like to get rid of PG_reserved at some point. So I'd > > > rather not overload it with more meanings ;) > > > > really? > > > > as far as I know, IA64 already use PG_reserved for bad memory. > > please see arch/ia64/kernel/mcs_drv.c#mca_page_isolate. > > > > Doesn't it works on ia64 if your patch introduce? > > It doesn't really need to use PG_reserved there, no. It could > use PG_bad for that instead. > Hmm, it seems that it's necessary to rewrite ia64/mca code after PG_bad patch is merged. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org