On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:20:49 -0700 > > > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:02:28 -0700 (PDT) bugme-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11046 > ... > > > Here is the BUG: > > > > > > [ 0.000000] PROMLIB: Sun IEEE Boot Prom 'OBP 4.11.5 2003/11/12 10:40' > > > [ 0.000000] PROMLIB: Root node compatible: > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.25.10 (root@sparc1) (gcc version 4.1.2 > > > 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)) #5 SMP Sun Jul 6 21:05:42 CEST 2008 > > > [ 0.000000] console [earlyprom0] enabled > > > [ 0.000000] ARCH: SUN4U > > > [ 0.000000] Ethernet address: 00:03:ba:7a:f3:d6 > > > [ 0.000000] Kernel: Using 2 locked TLB entries for main kernel image. > > > [ 0.000000] Remapping the kernel... done. > > > [ 0.000000] kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:125! > > This can only happen if you attach a zero-sized initrd to the kernel. > > I see platforms like x86 sometimes have explicit checks for a zero > size to guard reserve_bootmem() and similar calls, but if that's what > callers are all going to do doesn't it make better sense for > reserve_bootmem_core() to just return instead of BUG on a zero size > argument? Sounds logical. Johannes just rewrote the bootmem code, but from a quick read it appears that this behaviour has been retained. So if we're going to change it in 2.6.26, we'll need a separate patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
