From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx168.postini.com [74.125.245.168]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2FC56B0069 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pbbrp2 with SMTP id rp2so2421381pbb.14 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory From: Yinghai Lu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Gavin Shan , Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , David Miller , hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-mm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Yinghai. > > Sorry about the delay. =A0I'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. =A0Will review the patch itself. =A0BTW, can't you = post >> > patches inline anymore? =A0Attaching is better than corrupt but is sti= ll >> > 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" > =A0looks okay to me. Good, this one should go to 3.5, right? > > * "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me > =A0wonder whether it would be better to have something like the > =A0following instead. > > =A0typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned s= ize); > > =A0void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn) > =A0{ > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0/* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */ > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0/* clear both structures so that any further usage trigger= s warning */ > =A0} ok, will check it. > > * "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock". > =A0Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit? =A0I think it's > =A0adding too much opencoded identical checks. =A0Maybe implement a > =A0common check & warning function? yes. Thanks Yinghai -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org