Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758273Ab2F0SNh (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:13:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:57631 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754118Ab2F0SNf (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:13:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:13:30 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Gavin Shan , Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , David Miller , hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-mm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory Message-ID: <20120627181330.GN15811@google.com> References: <20120619041154.GA28651@shangw> <20120619212059.GJ32733@google.com> <20120619212618.GK32733@google.com> <20120621201728.GB4642@google.com> <20120622185113.GK4642@google.com> <20120622192919.GL4642@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1647 Lines: 45 Hello, Yinghai. Sorry about the delay. I'm in bug storm somehow. :( On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:14:43PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I wish we had a single call - say, memblock_die(), or whatever - so > > that there's a clear indication that memblock usage is done, but yeah > > maybe another day. ?Will review the patch itself. ?BTW, can't you post > > patches inline anymore? ?Attaching is better than corrupt but is still > > a bit annoying for review. > > please check the three patches: Heh, reviewing is cumbersome this way but here are my comments. * "[PATCH] memblock: free allocated memblock_reserved_regions later" looks okay to me. * "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me wonder whether it would be better to have something like the following instead. typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned size); void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn) { /* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */ /* clear both structures so that any further usage triggers warning */ } * "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock". Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit? I think it's adding too much opencoded identical checks. Maybe implement a common check & warning function? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/