From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756581Ab1DOTG4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:06:56 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51713 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756019Ab1DOTGz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:06:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:06:41 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexandre Demers Cc: Joerg Roedel , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Yinghai Lu , Alex Deucher , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39-rc3 Message-ID: <20110415190641.GA20770@elte.hu> References: <4DA6145D.9070703@kernel.org> <4DA655E7.3000904@zytor.com> <20110415131152.GJ18463@8bytes.org> <4DA8535B.4080901@gmail.com> <20110415142724.GK18463@8bytes.org> <4DA895A2.4060307@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DA895A2.4060307@gmail.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=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes 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 * Alexandre Demers wrote: > On 11-04-15 10:27 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:16:59AM -0400, Alexandre Demers wrote: > >> Ok, I'll test it today. Should I apply it on a clean rc3 without any of > >> the other patches? > > Yes, apply it just on -rc3 without any other patch. > > > >> BTW, may I suggest adding the info under bug 33012 in kernel bugzilla? > >> This could be useful in the future. > > Cool, thanks > > > > > > Joerg > The patch was applied and tested. It looks fine, I'm able to boot > without problem. Joerg, mind submitting it with a changelog that includes everything we learned about this bug and all the Tested-by's in place? Is anyone of the opinion that we should try to revert the allocation order/alignment changes in addition to this fix? Thanks, Ingo