[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810251529240.3327@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, walt <w41ter@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL] module, param and stop_machine patches
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Thanks, Heiko tracked this down; he's probably sleeping now but Hugh and Walt
> reported this fixes it for them and it makes sense.
I'm not seeing any "tracked it down".
Yes, it moves it back to its old place, but doesn't say why the new one
didn't work.
And it then mixes things up with 'stop_machine_init()' mess. Why does that
need to run so early?
Is there any reason why the real patch isn't just to make
'stop_machine_init' a 'core_initcall()' instead of 'early_initcall()'?
IOW, I don't think that patch is anything but a "hey, test if it works
with this". None of the changes or the problems are explained. Nor do I
see a sign-off from Heiko on it.
I also don't want to see more BUG_ON()'s there. Make them warnings or
something.
Linus
--
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