Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15

[Mike Rapoport]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 03:13:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:24:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:12:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:26:37 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ALl ppc qemu tests (including big endian pseries) also generate a warning.
> > > > 
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:1301 .memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x20/0x68
> > 
> > That is:
> > 
> > static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> >                                         phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
> >                                         phys_addr_t end, int nid,
> >                                         enum memblock_flags flags)
> > {
> >        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!align))
> >                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
> > 
> > Looks like patch
> > 
> >   "memblock: stop using implicit alignment to SMP_CACHE_BYTES"
> > 
> > missed some places ...
> 
> To be expected, I guess.  I'm pretty relaxed about this ;) Let's do
> another sweep in a week or so, after which we'll have a couple of
> months to mop up any leftovers.

After some more grepping and spatching I've found these: