On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 06:15:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 09:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 07:42:03AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > When lmb runs out of space in its internal tables, it gives errors on > > > every fs load operation. This is horribly confusing, as the poor user > > > tries different memory regions one at a time. > > > > > > Use the updated API to check the error code and print a helpful message. > > > Also, allow the operation to proceed. > > > > > > Update the tests accordingly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > [snip] > > > + if (ret == -E2BIG) { > > > + log_warning("Reservation tables exhausted: see > > > CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS\n"); > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > > This isn't the right option. Everyone has CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS > > set. You would want to increase CONFIG_LMB_MAX_REGIONS. > > > > But it sounds like what you've found and fixed is an underlying problem > > as to why 16 regions isn't enough in some common cases now? So we could > > I don't think I have fixed anything. But I'll send v2 and perhaps it > will be clearer what is going on here. > > > possibly avoid the string size growth here and have a comment that also > > matches up with the help under LMB_MAX_REGIONS? > > I don't know, sorry. The size of struct(lmb) on 64-bit sandbox is > about 400 bytes. There seems to be a lot of code to save not much > memory.
What do you mean here? The alternative is not unlimited ranges but instead to define the limit of memory regions and limit of reserved ranges. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature