From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755463AbZHDOsD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:48:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754530AbZHDOsB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50383 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753429AbZHDOsA (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:48:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:47:41 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Andreas Herrmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Sachin Sant , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Boot failure on x86_64 (OOPS set_cpu_sibling_map() ) Message-ID: <20090804144741.GL7746@elte.hu> References: <20090730182143.eadf36e6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4A718338.6050907@in.ibm.com> <20090730135623.GB16659@aftab> <20090803093144.GC9074@elte.hu> <20090803101401.GA14442@aftab> <20090803120739.GA29156@elte.hu> <20090803125059.GB14442@aftab> <20090804135029.GA6775@elte.hu> <20090804143150.GC1870@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090804143150.GC1870@aftab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 03:50:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Mind preparing a separate branch for it (.31-rc5 based) and send me > > > > a pull request so that we can share the commit between the EDAC tree > > > > and the x86 tree? > > > > > > Well, Andreas says the patches need a little polishing and he'll > > > be sending updated versions soon so you can pick them up. And > > > since the EDAC MCE stuff might still change before .32 merge > > > window opens, let's synchronize our pull requests instead. In the > > > meantime, I'll be rediffing the EDAC stuff against -tip for > > > linux-next. > > > > Would you rebase just due to this commit? > > No, I wanted to keep the opportunity to be able to rebase the > whole series until the very last minute before the merge window, > should anything need to be changed... Note that's the wrong workflow. We dont rebase Git trees really just because 'something needs to be changed' - we make sure all commits make sense, we fix bugs and append new changes to the end. That results in a far better end result than a constant rebasing workflow. See various mails from Linus on lkml about this topic. (i have no handy URL for this now - maybe someone else has) > > No need for that, feel free to carry it until Andreas sends an > > updated version. Then i can put it into a separate .31-rc5 based > > topic that you can pull into the EDAC tree. > > ... and this is basically what I had in mind: After you pull them > in, I'll rebase my branch against yours for linux-next. I see that > Stephen pulls edac before -tip in linux-next so I'll ask him > nicely to reorder those. This approach makes most sense anyways > since edac relies on a bunch of x86 facilities (topology bits, > rd/wrmsr_on_cpus, mcheck etc) and it is only natural that it goes > second in linux-next, right? > > Then the pull requests will go out in the same order during the > merge window and we should be fine. ok. I'll wait for Andreas's next version of the patch. Feel free to carry the interim version - just please dont crash the x86 bootup ;-) Ingo