[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwVnLE-DLRzS8G=8NxQZjF5M_O4kgrPoX+AOOEH-OZgog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 17:29:18 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>,
Debian kernel team <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>,
linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, debian-68k@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
>> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
>> a tested-by.
>
> UML is affected:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/8/186
>
> I wasted an hour finding out why it is crashing.
> Instead of testing kernels I really should read more LKML. ;-)
Hmm.
Ben - how about that
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu, cpu_devices);
approach that Richard uses in his patch, instead of the kcalloc? And
clearly UM should also do that CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES thing with
your patch.
Richard - does Ben's patch work for you too if you just add "select
GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES" in the UM Kconfig too (Kconfig.common, probably)?
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