On 6/11/08, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 23:26 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:> > Hi Andrew,> >> > The 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 kernel panic's, while booting up on the x86_64> > box with the attached .config file.>>> Just to save everyone the trouble, it looks like this is a new BUG_ON().> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.26-rc5/2.6.26-rc5-mm2/broken-out/fix-x86_64-splat.patch>> The machine in question is a single-node machine, but with> CONFIG_NUMA=y.> Yes. Sorry, I already responded in a separate e-mail (see below), butthat obviously missed all the Ccs. So here it goes again...: I'm betting commit a953e4597abd51b74c99e0e3b7074532a60fd031Author: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>Date: Mon May 12 21:21:12 2008 +0200 sched: replace MAX_NUMNODES with nr_node_ids in kernel/sched.c will fix this if it's not in -mm2 already. The BUG() is simply there to prevent silent corruption. Mike alreadyhas a patch that changes it to a WARN(), but it obviously didn't getthrough (either)... Vegard On 6/11/08, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On 6/9/08, Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> > Hi Andrew,> >> > The 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 kernel panic's, while booting up on the x86_64> > box with the attached .config file.>> (Please apologize for the strange way of replying to this message. It> seems that LKML gave up delivering to my address, so I'm currently> reading off lkml.org.)>> This should already be fixed, but Andrew refused to apply the patch> before releasing the -mm1 (and -mm2 apparently). I'm attaching the> patch, can you see if it helps?>> Thanks.>>> Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in whilethe programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as itdisguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
