From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C55DDE19 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:57:26 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080815.195724.238982506.davem@davemloft.net> To: michael@ellerman.id.au Subject: Re: bug in lmb_enforce_memory_limit() From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1218847582.7576.6.camel@localhost> References: <1218713213.10673.17.camel@localhost> <20080815.152501.193746275.davem@davemloft.net> <1218847582.7576.6.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Michael Ellerman Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:46:22 +1000 > On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:25 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > Sounds great. Mind if I push the following to Linus? > > Looks good to me. > > I'll test it on Monday. I don't know if I have a system with memory > holes to test on, but I take it you do? > > I notice some of our 32-bit code is using lmb_enforce_memory_limit() to > enforce an address limit, which is technically broken, but is probably > fine because it doesn't need to worry about holes. Sounds like fun :-) > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman Thanks for reviewing Michael.