Hello, On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:04:10PM +0200, Meelis Roos wrote: > > Hmmm.... So, different bisection results from two machines? That's a > > bit weird. I *think* this bisection result makes more sense. Can you > > please verify the bisection result on e2500 once more? > > Will do. Thanks a lot. I'm *suspecting* that somehow memory used to back the device tree is not fully reserved and the change in allocation logic is giving out it as part of allocation. I'll look through the change more and see if I can spot a bug in the new code but I guess we'll probably have to print out some pointer values to find out the offending address. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
