Re: [Patch] i386 bootioremap / kexec fix

Andrew Morton
2006-09-22T03:16:16Z

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:54:45 -0700
keith mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> With CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START set to a non default values the i386
> boot_ioremap code calculated its pte index wrong and users of
> boot_ioremap have their areas incorrectly mapped (for me SRAT table not
> mapped during early boot). This patch removes the addr < BOOT_PTE_PTRS
> constraint.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Mannthey<kmannth@us.ibm.com>
> ---
> boot_ioremap.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff -urN linux-2.6.18-rc6-mm2-orig/arch/i386/mm/boot_ioremap.c
> linux-2.6.17/arch/i386/mm/boot_ioremap.c
> --- linux-2.6.18-rc6-mm2-orig/arch/i386/mm/boot_ioremap.c 2006-09-18
> 01:19:22.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17/arch/i386/mm/boot_ioremap.c 2006-09-18
> 01:23:33.000000000 -0700
> @@ -29,8 +29,11 @@
> */
>
> #define BOOT_PTE_PTRS (PTRS_PER_PTE*2)
> -#define boot_pte_index(address) \
> - (((address) >> PAGE_SHIFT) & (BOOT_PTE_PTRS - 1))
> +
> +static unsigned long boot_pte_index(unsigned long vaddr)
> +{
> + return __pa(vaddr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +}
>
> static inline boot_pte_t* boot_vaddr_to_pte(void *address)
> {

Thanks. This patch is against 2.6.18-rc6-mm2, yes? Does it fix a bug which
is only in -mm? If so, do you know which patch introduced it? Seems to me
that this is a 2.6.18 fix?

Is this the thing which was causing your NUMA machine to fail? If so, does
2.6.18 boot OK now?

You have a bit of wordwrapping happening there btw.