On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >From dd1534455196d2a8f6c9c912db614e59986c9f0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:59:35 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] x86: Early boot alternative instructions > > hm, patch is whitespace damaged. > > Also, the fix looks rather intrusive. > > Could we please disable the lockless slub code first and then do everything > with proper testing and re-enable the lockless code *after* we know that the > alternatives fixup change is robust, etc? That way there's no rush needed. > > There's a lot of code that could break from tweaking the alternatives code. Just ignore this patch. As explained by Christoph, if alternative_io() was the issue, we'd see the crash in kmem_cache_alloc(). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>