[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804291843550.6003@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:51:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations"
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:02 +0200 (CEST)
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >
> > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
> Ironically, I just bisected sparc64 bootup failures to the following
> changeset. It's very late here, and I haven't looked into the
> details, but it seems to wedge in free_area_init_nodes() on a non-NUMA
> system with CONFIG_NUMA disabled.
>
> Isn't it funny that this optimization not only was useless, but also
> broke things. :-/
The question is, whether it broke things or just unearthed some bug
hidden elsewhere.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists