From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:04:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <507E7D5C02000078000A1DE6@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <507E7D5C02000078000A1DE6@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , "Liu, Jinsong" Cc: xen-devel , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/10/2012 08:41, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > So I just now realized that a similar change was already done > by 23736:31683aa4bfb3 and then reverted by > 23760:ae10d7804168. Nothing was done subsequently to > address the actual problem(s). It is quite obvious that the more > relaxed check uncovers other bugs in the ERST code, yet looking > at the Linux history of the corresponding file doesn't reveal any > fix the lack of which would explain an outright hang (rather than > a crash, as I would expect to be the result of e.g. the missing > ioremap()-s added by 0bbba38a61283a55f2061ab3e0910c572d19f462. > > Most of the other changes are cosmetic or pstore related, so I > wonder whether instead of reverting again we should try pulling > in this one extra fix. > > If reverting is preferred (or turns out necessary if that second > fix doesn't help), we should settle on the disposition of the whole > APEI/ERST code, as my conclusion is that it is pretty much > unmaintained since its original contribution over two years ago. Perhaps we reverted before because we decided that this advertised table size was a bug, and handling it just opened us to other bugs lurking in the table? -- Keir > Jan >