[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225024316.GA1738@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:43:16 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/percpu] bootmem: clean up arch-specific bootmem wrapping
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:27:58AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > No, when the patch was submitted for review, I pointed out the change
> > in semantics and gathered from Tejun's reaction that this wasn't done
> > intentionally. So the problem is the change itself, not the missing
> > declaration.
>
> Yeah, I should have regenerated the tree. Sorry about that.
Sorry about my rude way of commenting.
> >>>From the original mail:
> >
> > Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > This won't suffice as reserve_bootmem() doesn't use
> > > alloc_bootmem_core(), so now you effectively removed the
> > > node-0 restriction for reserve_bootmem() on this
> > > configuration.
> >
> > Ah... right. :-(
> >
> > I just wrote again because I didn't understand why Tejun acknowledged
> > the error in the patch and then it went into -tip anyway.
> >
> > The other part of my email was just suggestions for a cleanup, I
> > wasn't referring to that when I said 'broken' - sorry if that is how
> > it came over.
>
> It seems that the wrapping thing was broken both before and after the
> patch and can lead to panic on free path. I'll soon post a patch to
> fix it.
Ok, thanks for looking into it!
Hannes
--
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