[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080724113748.160faff2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:37:48 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, lomp0101@....net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 11046] New: Kernel bug in mm/bootmem.c on Sparc machines
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:09:38 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:20:49 -0700
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:02:28 -0700 (PDT) bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11046
> >> ...
> >> > > Here is the BUG:
> >> > >
> >> > > [ 0.000000] PROMLIB: Sun IEEE Boot Prom 'OBP 4.11.5 2003/11/12 10:40'
> >> > > [ 0.000000] PROMLIB: Root node compatible:
> >> > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.25.10 (root@...rc1) (gcc version 4.1.2
> >> > > 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)) #5 SMP Sun Jul 6 21:05:42 CEST 2008
> >> > > [ 0.000000] console [earlyprom0] enabled
> >> > > [ 0.000000] ARCH: SUN4U
> >> > > [ 0.000000] Ethernet address: 00:03:ba:7a:f3:d6
> >> > > [ 0.000000] Kernel: Using 2 locked TLB entries for main kernel image.
> >> > > [ 0.000000] Remapping the kernel... done.
> >> > > [ 0.000000] kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:125!
> >>
> >> This can only happen if you attach a zero-sized initrd to the kernel.
> >>
> >> I see platforms like x86 sometimes have explicit checks for a zero
> >> size to guard reserve_bootmem() and similar calls, but if that's what
> >> callers are all going to do doesn't it make better sense for
> >> reserve_bootmem_core() to just return instead of BUG on a zero size
> >> argument?
> >
> > Sounds logical.
> >
> > Johannes just rewrote the bootmem code, but from a quick read it
> > appears that this behaviour has been retained.
>
> In the new version, zero sized ranges are okay for reservation and
> freeing. It still bugs on allocation, though.
>
Interesting. So from Dave's patch (which changes only
reserve_bootmem_core() and free_bootmem_core()), it sounds like we
have already fixed 2.6.27?
In which case David's 2.6.26 patch is a "minimal backport".
--
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