Hello, Johannes Weiner wrote: > No, when the patch was submitted for review, I pointed out the change > in semantics and gathered from Tejun's reaction that this wasn't done > intentionally. So the problem is the change itself, not the missing > declaration. Yeah, I should have regenerated the tree. Sorry about that. >>From the original mail: > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > This won't suffice as reserve_bootmem() doesn't use > > alloc_bootmem_core(), so now you effectively removed the > > node-0 restriction for reserve_bootmem() on this > > configuration. > > Ah... right. :-( > > I just wrote again because I didn't understand why Tejun acknowledged > the error in the patch and then it went into -tip anyway. > > The other part of my email was just suggestions for a cleanup, I > wasn't referring to that when I said 'broken' - sorry if that is how > it came over. It seems that the wrapping thing was broken both before and after the patch and can lead to panic on free path. I'll soon post a patch to fix it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|