On 03/31/2010 04:54 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quoted text
> 
> ---
>  mm/bootmem.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/bootmem.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/bootmem.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/bootmem.c
> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem_no
>  unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM
> -	return free_all_memory_core_early(NODE_DATA(0)->node_id);
> +	return free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);
>  #else
>  	return free_all_bootmem_core(NODE_DATA(0)->bdata);
>  #endif
> 
>>
>> Furthermore, I really don't see the connection between this and James
>> Morris' reported problem, which he reports as "amd64", which presumably
>> is an x86-64 kernel and not 32 bits...  James, is that correct?  Any
>> more details you can give about the system?  I *really* don't want to go
>> into cargo cult programming mode, that would suck eggs no matter what.
> 
> it happened one of my test setup, node0 ram disappear somehow.
> and i found the 32bit numa doesn't work on that.
> 

... which is useful and valid, but I still think this isn't related to
James' problem, if James' problem wasn't actually fixed in -rc3.  That's
the part that I'm afraid I have to be confused about... all the known
problems except the above are fixed in -rc3, and I'd at least like to
have a validated bug report of any sort before saying it should all be
tossed.

This patch looks a lot better.  The whole use of MAX_NUMNODES as a
sentinel (which appears inherited from mm/page_alloc.c, and as such is a
pre-existing convention which is also invoked here) really could use a
comment, though.

	-hpa
--
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/