From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:00:24 +0000 Subject: Re: Regression in 543cea9a - was: Re: Kernel problem on rx2800 i2 Message-Id: <20190625120024.GA3979@lst.de> List-Id: References: <1d62aadd-67b6-da13-53cc-4b5213de8937@physik.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <1d62aadd-67b6-da13-53cc-4b5213de8937@physik.fu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 01:21:38PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Ok, that looks much better now with the second patch: > > ...even after a second reboot for verification. Great!( > > (...) > > I assume this won't affect UMA Itaniums or should I check on one of my > > other Integrities if this change breaks the kernel on them? > > Nice! I just assume we won't be able to use the patch "as is" as it would > potentially break other architectures if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't actually _break_ anything, but it regresses in not doing node local allocations. Give me some time to dig through the ia64 code to figure out if I can make sense of this.