Commit Graph

12 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Yinghai Lu a9ce6bc151 x86, memblock: Replace e820_/_early string with memblock_
1.include linux/memblock.h directly. so later could reduce e820.h reference.
2 this patch is done by sed scripts mainly

-v2: use MEMBLOCK_ERROR instead of -1ULL or -1UL

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2010-08-27 11:13:47 -07:00
Thomas Gleixner 9866b7e86a x86: memtest: use pointers of equal type for comparison
Commit c9690998ef (x86: memtest: remove
64-bit division) introduced following compile warning:

arch/x86/mm/memtest.c: In function 'memtest':
arch/x86/mm/memtest.c:56: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
arch/x86/mm/memtest.c:58: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2009-06-11 16:26:35 +02:00
Andreas Herrmann c9690998ef x86: memtest: remove 64-bit division
Using gcc 3.3.5 a "make allmodconfig" + "CONFIG_KVM=n"
triggers a build error:

 arch/x86/mm/built-in.o(.init.text+0x43f7): In function `__change_page_attr':
 arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c:114: undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
 make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

The culprit turned out to be a division in arch/x86/mm/memtest.c
For more info see this thread:

  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124416232620683

The patch entirely removes the division that caused the build
error.

[ Impact: build fix with certain GCC versions ]

Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
LKML-Reference: <20090608170939.GB12431@alberich.amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-06-08 19:18:25 +02:00
Yinghai Lu d1a8e77920 x86: make "memtest" like "memtest=17"
Impact: make boot command line "memtest" do one loop by default

So don't need to guess many patterns in one loop.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
LKML-Reference: <49B10532.3020105@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-03-06 12:16:43 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann 63823126c2 x86: memtest: add additional (regular) test patterns
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:47 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann bfb4dc0da4 x86: memtest: wipe out test pattern from memory
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:46 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann 570c9e69aa x86: memtest: adapt log messages
- print test pattern instead of pattern number,
- show pattern as stored in memory,
- use proper priority flags,
- consistent use of u64 throughout the code

Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:46 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann 7dad169e57 x86: memtest: cleanup memtest function
Impact: code cleanup

Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:45 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann 6d74171bf7 x86: memtest: introduce array to select memtest patterns
Impact: code cleanup

Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:45 +01:00
Andreas Herrmann 40823f737e x86: memtest: reuse test patterns when memtest parameter exceeds number of available patterns
Impact: fix unexpected behaviour when pattern number is out of range

Current implementation provides 4 patterns for memtest. The code doesn't
check whether the memtest parameter value exceeds the maximum pattern number.

Instead the memtest code pretends to test with non-existing patterns, e.g.
when booting with memtest=10 I've observed the following

  ...
  early_memtest: pattern num 10
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 0
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 1
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 2
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 3
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 4
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 5
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 6
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 7
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 8
  ...
  0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 9
  ...

But in fact Linux didn't test anything for patterns > 4 as the default
case in memtest() is to leave the function.

I suggest to use the memtest parameter as the number of tests to be
performed and to re-iterate over all existing patterns.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-02-25 12:19:44 +01:00
Daniele Calore 2cb0ebeeb6 x86: memtest fix use of reserve_early()
Hi all,

Wrong usage of 2nd parameter in reserve_early call.
66/75: reserve_early(start_bad, last_bad - start_bad, "BAD RAM");
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The correct way is to use 'end' address and not 'size'.
As a bonus a fix to the printk format.

Signed-off-by: Daniele Calore <orkaan@orkaan.org>
Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-10-22 17:08:06 +02:00
Yinghai Lu 1f067167a8 x86: seperate memtest from init_64.c
it's separate functionality that deserves its own file.

This also prepares 32-bit memtest support.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-07-18 14:10:27 +02:00