On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 06:45:27 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> > > I've read through the thread trying to work out what the end-user > > impact of that fix is, but it's all clear as mud. It's possible that > > the end-user effect is `kernel locks up after printing "Booting the > > kernel"'. Or maybe not. > > > > And if the above patch does indeed fix something significant, we might > > need a -stable backport. > > > > Somebody needs this patch when debugging with CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y on > architectures with PAGE_SHIFT + MAX_ORDER > 26 . Well *why* do they need it? What happens without the patch? How would a person determine whether their kernel needs this patch? When this patch crosses Greg's desk for -stable inclusion he's going to wonder "why do users of -stable kernels need this", and you guys haven't told him! Grumble. Why is it so hard to get a simple and decent changelog for this patch? Look, I'll make this easier: : Subject: slab: fix init_lock_keys : : In 3.10 kernels with CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y on architectures with : PAGE_SHIFT + MAX_ORDER > 26 such as [architecture goes here], the kernel does : [x] when the user does [y]. : : init_lock_keys() goes too far in initializing values in kmalloc_caches : because it assumed that the size of the kmalloc array goes up to : MAX_ORDER. However, the size of the kmalloc array for SLAB may be : restricted due to increased page sizes or CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER. : : Fix this by [z]. Please fill in the text within []. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
