On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
quoted text
>> firmware_map_add_early() is using bootmem for the allocation. So yes,
>> I guess it should possible to use kobjects here. That said, this code
>> is in fact fairly recent:
>>
>> commit 69ac9cd629ca96e59f34eb4ccd12d00b2c8276a7
>> Author: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
>> Date:   Fri Jun 27 13:12:54 2008 +0200
>>
>>     sysfs: add /sys/firmware/memmap
>>
>> I'll add the Cc. I still have a feeling that the kobject patch should
>> expect to run even when slab is not available.
>
> I never has been expected to do so in the past, so odds are, lots of
> things might break :(

Yeah. Maybe you should withdraw your ack? :-D

    Signed-off-by: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
    Acked-by: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
    Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
    Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
    Cc: yhlu.kernel@gmail.com
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

I'm sorry for having been a bit rash earlier -- it's the combination
of the patches that produce the failure; they both seem okay on their
own. On the other hand, this is what -next is for, isn't it?

Maybe the firmware memmap code can simply run a little later in the
boot sequence?


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/