From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753465Ab1AGOWQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:22:16 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:37098 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752161Ab1AGOWP (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:22:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:22:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling Message-ID: <20110107142203.GA12773@elte.hu> References: <4D2603BF020000780002ACA7@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4D26D3FD020000780002AED9@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4D26F3AE020000780002AF5D@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20110107125722.GA23185@elte.hu> <4D272413020000780002B009@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D272413020000780002B009@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 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 * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 07.01.11 at 13:57, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> >>> On 07.01.11 at 10:58, David Rientjes wrote: > >> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > > >> >> However, the problem my patch addresses has been long standing > >> >> (I noted it with our .32 based kernel, but according to my looking at > >> >> the code it would go back to at least .27), so I'd like to ask for it to > >> >> be merged independently (and I should probably have copied stable > >> >> too), unless (quite unlikely) Tejun's merge is intended to also be > >> >> applied to stable kernels. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't think this should be targeted to -stable since it's not a bugfix; > >> > this is adding a feature that allows you to disable acpi parsing of the > >> > SRAT on i386. > >> > >> How is this not a bug fix if it allows a system to boot that previously > >> didn't? > > > > btw., that's an absolutely key piece of information that REALLY should have > > been > > included in the changelog of the first patch. It is more important than all > > of the > > changelog. > > Quoting that text: "In order to be able to suppress the use of SRAT > tables that 32-bit Linux can't deal with (possibly leading to a non- > bootable system, without disabling ACPI altogether), move the > "numa=" option handling to common code." > > To me it says just that. And of course, not every system with a > not understood SRAT would be yielded non-bootable, hence the > wording "possibly leading to ...". Your -stable comment above made it appear to me as if you knew about a specific system that crashed this way? As long as it's only theoretical i'm not sure it warrants a -stable backport. Thanks, Ingo