----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > I'll take a look at these when I get the chance, but I'm really > > not particularly excited unless they are actual bugs. > > Like this one: > > --- a/memory.c > +++ b/memory.c > @@ -17003,8 +17003,8 @@ valid_section(ulong addr) > > if ((mem_section = read_mem_section(addr))) > return (ULONG(mem_section + > - OFFSET(mem_section_section_mem_map)) && > - SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT); > + OFFSET(mem_section_section_mem_map)) > + & SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT); > return 0; > } > > @@ -17016,7 +17016,7 @@ section_has_mem_map(ulong addr) > if ((mem_section = read_mem_section(addr))) > return (ULONG(mem_section + > OFFSET(mem_section_section_mem_map)) > - && SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP); > + & SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP); > return 0; > } > > This code has been like this since the original CONFIG_SPARSEMEM support > patch was posted back in 2006. Interesting that this has never been a > problem. Apparently nobody's ever bumped into mem_section that didn't > have those flags. Interestingly enough, this patch breaks RHEL5 and earlier kernels. (try "kmem -n" with and without the patch). Probably a flag issue with earlier CONFIG_SPARSEMEM kernels. Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
