Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757330Ab2F0TWT (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:22:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:62240 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756257Ab2F0TWP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:22:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20120627181330.GN15811@google.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:14 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8gVgXaS_5jx4pAXXeySxpa386DY Message-ID: Subject: Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory From: Yinghai Lu To: Tejun Heo Cc: Gavin Shan , Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , David Miller , hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-mm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 54 On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Good, this one should go to 3.5, right? > > * "[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 */ > ?} ok, will check it. > > * "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? yes. Thanks Yinghai -- 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/