[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901091637.24658.chandru@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:37:24 +0530
From: Chandru <chandru@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rc9 panics with crashkernel=256M while booting
On Friday 09 January 2009 01:33:12 Dave Hansen wrote:
> Now I'm even more confused. Could you please send a fully changelogged
> patch that describes the problem, and how this fixes it? This just
> seems like an off-by-one error, which isn't what I thought we had before
> at all.
>
> I'm also horribly confused why PFN_UP is needed here. Is 'physbase' not
> page aligned? reserve_size looks like it *has* to be. 'end_pfn' is
> always (as far as I have ever seen in the kernel) the pfn of the page
> after the area we are interested in and we treat it as such in that
> function. In the case of an unaligned physbase, that wouldn't be true.
>
> Think of the case where we have a 1-byte reservation. start_pfn will
> equal end_pfn and we won't go into that while loop at *all* and won't
> reserve anything.
>
> Does 'end_pfn' need fixing?
>
Attached is the console log with debug command line parameters enabled and
with couple of more debug statements added to the code. Please take a look at it.
thanks,
Chandru
View attachment "console_log.txt" of type "text/plain" (5273 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists