linux-kernel - Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAE9FiQXk4abAzuKN8xiA5p5OJaG4UMzQR_Jzx2SsKOuUnKON_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:14 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Gavin Shan <shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Yinghai.
>
> Sorry about the delay.  I'm in bug storm somehow. :(
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:14:43PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > I wish we had a single call - say, memblock_die(), or whatever - so
>> > that there's a clear indication that memblock usage is done, but yeah
>> > maybe another day.  Will review the patch itself.  BTW, can't you post
>> > patches inline anymore?  Attaching is better than corrupt but is still
>> > a bit annoying for review.
>>
>> please check the three patches:
>
> Heh, reviewing is cumbersome this way but here are my comments.
>
> * "[PATCH] memblock: free allocated memblock_reserved_regions later"
>  looks okay to me.

Good, this one should go to 3.5, right?


>
> * "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me
>  wonder whether it would be better to have something like the
>  following instead.
>
>  typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned size);
>
>  void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn)
>  {
>        /* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */
>        /* clear both structures so that any further usage triggers warning */
>  }

ok, will check it.

>
> * "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock".
>  Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit?  I think it's
>  adding too much opencoded identical checks.  Maybe implement a
>  common check & warning function?

yes.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/