[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100315.152037.32744329.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: shemminger@...tta.com
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
roger.oksanen@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [19/39] e100: Use pci pool to work around
GFP_ATOMIC order 5 memory allocation failure
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:36:53 -0700
>
>> The kernel has both fixes in it. The customer reported that if both
>> were reverted, the kernel panic went away.
>
> Please recheck that as your backtrace matches exactly the
> crash signature fixed by the memset().
As an update, after some auditing I found that ring parameter changes
aren't handled correctly by the PCI pool changes and that might
explain the crash.
I'll push the following fix around as soon as possible:
diff --git a/drivers/net/e100.c b/drivers/net/e100.c
index a26ccab..b997e57 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e100.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e100.c
@@ -2858,7 +2858,7 @@ static int __devinit e100_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
}
nic->cbs_pool = pci_pool_create(netdev->name,
nic->pdev,
- nic->params.cbs.count * sizeof(struct cb),
+ nic->params.cbs.max * sizeof(struct cb),
sizeof(u32),
0);
DPRINTK(PROBE, INFO, "addr 0x%llx, irq %d, MAC addr %pM\n",
--
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