From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx183.postini.com [74.125.245.183]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E84156B0062 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dakp5 with SMTP id p5so2117143dak.14 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:13:30 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory Message-ID: <20120627181330.GN15811@google.com> References: <20120619041154.GA28651@shangw> <20120619212059.GJ32733@google.com> <20120619212618.GK32733@google.com> <20120621201728.GB4642@google.com> <20120622185113.GK4642@google.com> <20120622192919.GL4642@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Gavin Shan , Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , David Miller , hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-mm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Hello, Yinghai. Sorry about the delay. I'm in bug storm somehow. :( On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:14:43PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I wish we had a single call - say, memblock_die(), or whatever - so > > that there's a clear indication that memblock usage is done, but yeah > > maybe another day. Will review the patch itself. BTW, can't you post > > patches inline anymore? Attaching is better than corrupt but is still > > a bit annoying for review. > > please check the three patches: Heh, reviewing is cumbersome this way but here are my comments. * "[PATCH] memblock: free allocated memblock_reserved_regions later" looks okay to me. * "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me wonder whether it would be better to have something like the following instead. typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned size); void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn) { /* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */ /* clear both structures so that any further usage triggers warning */ } * "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock". Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit? I think it's adding too much opencoded identical checks. Maybe implement a common check & warning function? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org