On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:21:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 23:01, Alexander Graf [off-list ref] wrote:

So I would personally prefer for this code not to go in at all. But if
it does go in (and Steven has already agreed to this), it needs a
giant disclaimer that it is best effort and may get broken
inadvertently by changes that may seem unrelated.

I think that reserve_mem= is way less intrusive than memmap= we anyway
have.
It will reserve memory and the documentation adequately warns that the
location of that memory might be at different physical addresses.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.