Re: [tip:x86/alternatives] x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbersfor cpufeature index
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Tue Jun 29 2010 - 11:34:21 EST
On 06/29/2010 02:15 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Hm, this patch is causing trouble in -tip testing again - it's triggering a
> colorful boot crash:
> [ 2.220002] calling inet_init+0x0/0x23d @ 1
> [ 2.223343] NET: Registered protocol family 2
> [ 2.226727] IP route cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
> [ 2.233492] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 2.236671] WARNING: at mm/vmalloc.c:107 vmap_page_range_noflush+0x309/0x3a0()
> [ 2.240001] Modules linked in:
> [ 3.090002] Kernel panic - not syncing: Failed to allocate TCP established hash table
> So i've zapped them again. We really need to get to the bottom of this. Config
> and bootlog attached.
> The crash looks very weird - and it's consistent with possible effects of some
> sort of code patching failure/mismatch.
> It goes away if i revert these two:
> a3d2d12: x86, alternatives: correct obsolete use of "u8" in static_cpu_has()
> 5dc71d4: x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers for cpufeature index
> I reproduced the crash twice before testing the revert.
I'm pretty sure that these are related to gcc and/or binutils
differences, so it would be nice to get the .o and .s files of the
failing locations (in this case mm/vmalloc.[so]) *as built on the
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/