[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181015151319.3a443f0421c20bd7ed055cb9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:13:19 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:24:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:12:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:26:37 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ALl ppc qemu tests (including big endian pseries) also generate a warning.
> > >
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:1301 .memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x20/0x68
>
> That is:
>
> static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
> phys_addr_t end, int nid,
> enum memblock_flags flags)
> {
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!align))
> align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
>
> Looks like patch
>
> "memblock: stop using implicit alignment to SMP_CACHE_BYTES"
>
> missed some places ...
To be expected, I guess. I'm pretty relaxed about this ;) Let's do
another sweep in a week or so, after which we'll have a couple of
months to mop up any leftovers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists