[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080730130419.49986a25.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:04:19 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: bwalle@...e.de, greg@...ah.com, hugh@...itas.com, gregkh@...e.de,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for July 29
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:27:41 +0200
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:06:50 +0200 Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > * Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> [2008-07-29 21:48]:
> > > > > Isn't this the opposite end of the same problem for which Bernhard
> > > > > has been repeatedly trying to find a taker for his patch:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kexec/1882
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It's not the kobject patch at fault here, it's the use of kobjects
> > > > so early in the boot process. That needs to be fixed.
> >
> > It was a bit optimistic to stick an unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocation
> > into the previously-atomic kobject_init().
> >
> > It's only 128 bytes, so why can't we fix both problems thusly?
>
> Fixes the bug for me (also true for previous patch from Bernhard).
>
Cool.
The offending patch has just got itself turfed from linux-next so my
fix now has nothing to fix.
We'll see what happens!
--
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