On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 12:21:51PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 05/01/16 11:45, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:35:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 23:55:12 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:09:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>>Thanks. That patch has rather a blooper if > >>>>CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=n. Is that the case in your testing? > >>>Seems to be what's making a difference from a quick run through, yes. > >>OK, thanks. > >Seems like I was mistaken here somehow or there's some other problem - > >I've kicked off another bisect for today's -next: > > https://ci.linaro.org/view/people/job/tbaker-boot-bisect-bot/137/console > >and will follow up with any results. > With both patches applied(one already in today's -next), I am able to > boot on ARM64 platform but I get huge load(for each pfn) of below warning: Bisect on today's -next with Arndale (an ARM platform) flags the same patch: https://ci.linaro.org/view/people/job/tbaker-boot-bisect-bot/137/console as does Juno which is an arm64 platform: https://ci.linaro.org/view/people/job/tbaker-boot-bisect-bot/138/console (it does get to a console but with lots of the backtraces Sudeep indicated).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
