On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I never has been expected to do so in the past, so odds are, lots of
> things might break :(
Yeah. Maybe you should withdraw your ack? :-D
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
I'm sorry for having been a bit rash earlier -- it's the combination
of the patches that produce the failure; they both seem okay on their
own. On the other hand, this is what -next is for, isn't it?
Maybe the firmware memmap code can simply run a little later in the
boot sequence?
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
