Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Ingo do you have any idea what NR_IRQS or nr_irqs were/are on >> that failing machine? > > Sorry, not - and the merge window doesnt leave much time to revisit the > problem right now. > > But the failures were very real and 100% caused by this: they resulted in > non-existent /dev/sda* nodes and resulting fsck failure by rc. I have looked it over a second time and I have convinced myself that arch_probe_nr_irqs will in the worst case reduce nr_irqs, and never increase it beyond NR_IRQS. So this revert (keeping arch_probe_nr_irqs) is safe. It makes little sense that a larger nr_irqs would be a problem, but clearly there are assumptions somewhere that we still need to remove. Eric -- 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
|