From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752296Ab1GTQEo (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:04:44 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46818 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752149Ab1GTQEn (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:04:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> References: <20110707102107.GA16666@in.ibm.com> <1310036375.3282.509.camel@twins> <20110714103418.7ef25b68@kryten> <20110714143521.5fe4fab6@kryten> <1310649379.2586.273.camel@twins> <20110715104547.29c3c509@kryten> <1311024956.2309.22.camel@laptop> <20110719144451.79bc69ab@kryten> <1311070894.13765.180.camel@twins> <20110720201436.19e9689a@kryten> <1311158708.5345.12.camel@twins> <20110720221420.153b0830@kryten> <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982 To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Anton Blanchard , mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu, benh@kernel.crashing.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0 boot on > 16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay them until > 3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little. So how much impact does your scary patch have on machines that don't have multiple nodes? If it's a "the code isn't even called by normal machines" kind of setup, I don't think I care a lot. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.linux-foundation.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38DFFB6F76 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:04:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id p6KG4LRF020414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:04:22 -0700 Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so315101wwj.14 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> References: <20110707102107.GA16666@in.ibm.com> <1310036375.3282.509.camel@twins> <20110714103418.7ef25b68@kryten> <20110714143521.5fe4fab6@kryten> <1310649379.2586.273.camel@twins> <20110715104547.29c3c509@kryten> <1311024956.2309.22.camel@laptop> <20110719144451.79bc69ab@kryten> <1311070894.13765.180.camel@twins> <20110720201436.19e9689a@kryten> <1311158708.5345.12.camel@twins> <20110720221420.153b0830@kryten> <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982 To: Peter Zijlstra Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard , mingo@elte.hu, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0 boot on > 16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay them until > 3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little. So how much impact does your scary patch have on machines that don't have multiple nodes? If it's a "the code isn't even called by normal machines" kind of setup, I don't think I care a lot. Linus