On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> commit 0e3638d1e04040121af00195f7e4628078246489
>>> Author: Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Thu Mar 16 17:30:16 2006 -0800
>>>
>>> warn when statically-allocated kobjects are used
>>>
>>> ..which only exists in -next. Is that just a truly ancient patch, or
>>> did somebody forget to adjust their clock?
>>
>> It is truely a very old patch, that only lives in my tree, and currently
>> isn't planned to go to Linus any year soon.
>>
>> But it has a very long history of living in the -mm tree, and finding
>> real bugs, it's just not "safe" enough to go to Linus's tree. Unless
>> you think it is?
>
> Hm. In this case, the patch is not even reporting a problem, it is in
> fact in error itself.
>
> The problem is that it calls kzalloc() before the slab caches have
> been set up. (Yes, it's a wonder that nothing crashed.) I can only
> suggest the addendum
>
> if (!slab_is_available())
> return;
Well, of course, it's also possible that the e820 code shouldn't be
initializing kobjects this early in the first place.
firmware_map_add_early() is using bootmem for the allocation. So yes,
I guess it should possible to use kobjects here. That said, this code
is in fact fairly recent:
commit 69ac9cd629ca96e59f34eb4ccd12d00b2c8276a7
Author: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Jun 27 13:12:54 2008 +0200
sysfs: add /sys/firmware/memmap
I'll add the Cc. I still have a feeling that the kobject patch should
expect to run even when slab is not available.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
