* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, your fix, while it solves a real bug we want to fix, is not quite
> > right for upstream integration yet. I can see 3 immediate problems with
> > it:
> >
> > > + if (!pud_present(*pud)) {
> > > + pud = (pud_t *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
> >
> > the GFP_ATOMIC here can fail.
>
> The memory hotplug code already uses GFP_ATOMIC elsewhere
> (spp_getpage)
wrong. The _x86_ memory hotplug code uses GFP_ATOMIC elsewhere.
The generic memory hotplug code does not.
and the x86 memory hotplug code uses GFP_ATOMIC and panic() elsewhere
because:
> The existing code already panics elsewhere (spp_getpage); i just
> copied that.
and you had nothing to do with that "existing code"? git-log reveals
that the GFP_ATOMIC and panic()-ing patch was added 2 years ago and was
signed off by you:
commit 44df75e629106efcada087cead6c3f33ed6bcc60
Author: Matt Tolentino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue Jan 17 07:03:41 2006 +0100
[PATCH] x86_64: add x86-64 support for memory hot-add
[...]
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We (like most upstream kernel subsystems) generally do not accept
patches into arch/x86 that spreads a buggy implementation detail
further. Please submit a patch that cleans up the mess. Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
