From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758687AbZBYCmA (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:42:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753544AbZBYClv (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:41:51 -0500 Received: from cmpxchg.org ([85.214.51.133]:55016 "EHLO cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752939AbZBYClv (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:41:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:43:16 +0100 From: Johannes Weiner To: Tejun Heo Cc: Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/percpu] bootmem: clean up arch-specific bootmem wrapping Message-ID: <20090225024316.GA1738@cmpxchg.org> References: <20090224214638.GA2049@cmpxchg.org> <20090224214932.GC12601@elte.hu> <20090224234949.GA1778@cmpxchg.org> <49A4ACAE.4020104@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49A4ACAE.4020104@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:27:58AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > No, when the patch was submitted for review, I pointed out the change > > in semantics and gathered from Tejun's reaction that this wasn't done > > intentionally. So the problem is the change itself, not the missing > > declaration. > > Yeah, I should have regenerated the tree. Sorry about that. Sorry about my rude way of commenting. > >>>From the original mail: > > > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > This won't suffice as reserve_bootmem() doesn't use > > > alloc_bootmem_core(), so now you effectively removed the > > > node-0 restriction for reserve_bootmem() on this > > > configuration. > > > > Ah... right. :-( > > > > I just wrote again because I didn't understand why Tejun acknowledged > > the error in the patch and then it went into -tip anyway. > > > > The other part of my email was just suggestions for a cleanup, I > > wasn't referring to that when I said 'broken' - sorry if that is how > > it came over. > > It seems that the wrapping thing was broken both before and after the > patch and can lead to panic on free path. I'll soon post a patch to > fix it. Ok, thanks for looking into it! Hannes