Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling
From: David Rientjes
Date: Fri Jan 07 2011 - 14:55:59 EST
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Your -stable comment above made it appear to me as if you knew about a
> > > specific
> > > system that crashed this way? As long as it's only theoretical i'm not sure
> > > it
> > > warrants a -stable backport.
> >
> > Yes, I do have a system affected (which made me craft the patch
> > in the first place).
>
> In that case it's very useful to start the commit with:
>
> System XYZ crashes during bootup due to a bug in numa= command line option
> handling.
>
> That will also cause me to add an immediate -stable backport tag from me, even if
> you dont add it. Keeping it all optional and theoretical with 'it may crash' wording
> just hides the essential piece of information that there's a real system affected by
> the bug.
>
I still don't think it meets the stable kernel rules. The changelog
explicitly states that we do not want to disable ACPI completely, so the
only numa= command line option that would possibly be useful on 32-bit is
numa=off in this case. If you're compiling a 32-bit kernel for a machine
with SRAT entries that can't be parsed by the kernel, then there's still
no explanation as to why CONFIG_NUMA=n won't fix it.
--
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/