On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:27:58AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Sorry about my rude way of commenting. > >>>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. Ok, thanks for looking into it! Hannes -- 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
|