linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Kernel crashes on boot with SPARSEMEM + HIGHMEM ena

To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Kernel crashes on boot with SPARSEMEM + HIGHMEM enabled
From: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:31:57 -0700
Cc: Michael Sundius <msundius@cisco.com>, David VomLehn <dvomlehn@cisco.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>, Jon Fraser <jfraser@broadcom.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/0MopB6npfGyCIIV+OXd0IFXS0quGBU7+0s0bLzeNkE=; b=Siuq+Ti0V/1gch32JrM91FVBFPqoFRC4Iot4SfAXXh/2YHVSxBB2WsZitfUdWetGvU wcmKhPnTXDxwOmnn9l8hBkJNSvmA6mQuxdWDDh+Bjpa2lZIkAMOwPnQHTA+7t0G7vGZH IwyxY5cV9f7hwZm5wj87jIaQngNXfuHbS2sqM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=MlqwM0ubKJnoNeh8vO9pILfiLZ+soduk9YweDrizIrd/X/Jv77q/LkIoNA6b4izsMU lZxf2q/9+4S3/hKX2aCRy6iyK4dPibEf3UDmbtNui5pKOik6TICWQQEtW+tPGoSCmamk QDGtHt5yZLmd2rMt1dT0lCJk7rJmahIAl2Yw0=
In-reply-to: <4D9603D8.2010709@caviumnetworks.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <c300b67a7a723369872c0b9a023d0b2e@localhost> <4D9603D8.2010709@caviumnetworks.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> I think this may do the same thing as my patch:
>
> http://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/1988/
>
> Although my patch had different motivations, and changes some other things
> around too.

I noticed that some of the other architectures have started using the
<linux/memblock.h> APIs for memory setup.  Do you think this would be
useful on MIPS, as part of a larger refactoring of bootmem_init() ?

What I liked about Michael's fix was that it is simple and
straightforward enough to meet the stable tree criteria.  Long term it
would probably be a good idea to clean up the memory init code and get
rid of the cut&paste "for" loops.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>