From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756945AbYCCSpR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:45:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752765AbYCCSpE (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:45:04 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50022 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752356AbYCCSpD (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:45:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:44:14 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Ingo Molnar , hans.rosenfeld@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert In-Reply-To: <47CC451A.2060501@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20080301105646.2c8620d9@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080303074620.GC5934@elte.hu> <20080303091304.GA17911@elte.hu> <47CC2A3D.1000307@linux.intel.com> <20080303174009.GA19131@elte.hu> <47CC451A.2060501@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the difference > goes away. > > I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ? Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some stupid bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the problem was. Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending site (which is apparently "follow_page()")? And do you have some odd compiler version? Linus