Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

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 <tj@kernel.org> 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