From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Witbrodt Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4dfdb8c0591f545ba749dd Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <734251.73444.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Yinghai Lu , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers > > Sorry if I am interfering... just wanted to inject this data, in case > > it's meaningful! > > Yeah, nothing has changed yet for your case. What should change your case > is the thing Yinghai is working on with the "late add of e820 data to the > resource tree". OK. > His earlier version already worked for you, didn't it? We're really now > just finalizing details (in fact, "insert_resource_expand_to_fit()" is > just a helper function for a detail that may not even matter all that > much). Yes, it worked fine! :D BTW, there was an individual who reported a regression back in May on the very same commit. I was not able to get him to participate in the process of tracking this down, but he did (suddenly) write a post on his blog a couple of days ago that he had success using some unspecified git tree HEAD. I believe that was probably the patch that you have reverted, so once I know that a new candidate is in place I will let him know on his blog and see if I can talk him into trying it. This has been a month-long quest for me -- beginning on Aug. 4 -- and I can understand why he gave up in May without resolving the issue. It's too bad for all of us that he didn't pursue it then, huh? Thanks, Dave W. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754706AbYH3G6u (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:58:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751426AbYH3G6k (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:58:40 -0400 Received: from web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.215]:27146 "HELO web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751061AbYH3G6k (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:58:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=OrMQz65iNnznvfFYcq3zT0PlnREGl/SoUj+6sYtcMPgU1g+KrzLMHsM97Etywv8zaMMdhHsPzNeQhItIrutG87E7Wx1GfIOqwF+12Z3ORaitWygTC5EW+XNzsh2R4tBEOsBqh7e4Bd9EpwX+YMobQ+pmYZF1qSHKLhQ0ytyCTxY=; X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT) From: David Witbrodt Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4dfdb8c0591f545ba749dd To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Yinghai Lu , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <734251.73444.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Sorry if I am interfering... just wanted to inject this data, in case > > it's meaningful! > > Yeah, nothing has changed yet for your case. What should change your case > is the thing Yinghai is working on with the "late add of e820 data to the > resource tree". OK. > His earlier version already worked for you, didn't it? We're really now > just finalizing details (in fact, "insert_resource_expand_to_fit()" is > just a helper function for a detail that may not even matter all that > much). Yes, it worked fine! :D BTW, there was an individual who reported a regression back in May on the very same commit. I was not able to get him to participate in the process of tracking this down, but he did (suddenly) write a post on his blog a couple of days ago that he had success using some unspecified git tree HEAD. I believe that was probably the patch that you have reverted, so once I know that a new candidate is in place I will let him know on his blog and see if I can talk him into trying it. This has been a month-long quest for me -- beginning on Aug. 4 -- and I can understand why he gave up in May without resolving the issue. It's too bad for all of us that he didn't pursue it then, huh? Thanks, Dave W.