On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> >  > Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
> >  >
> >  > > Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
> >  > > range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
> >  > > configurations.
> >  >
> >  > Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> >  >
> >  > This is far better than the original change it replaces and which
> >  > I also objected to in review.
> >  >
> >
> >  So...  do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for
> >  2.6.25?
> 
> the patch is wrong
> 

The last I saw was this:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:57:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:

quoted text
> Hi,
> 
> "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > could have chance that bootmem with reserved_early that is crossing
> > the nodes.
> 
> Upstream reserve_bootmem_core() would BUG() on a caller trying to cross
> nodes, so I don't see where this chance could come from.

Is that what you're referring to?

Was Johannes observation incorrect?  If so, why?
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/