On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:19 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Ilya, > >> I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our > >> environment. > >> Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot (mark_bootmem). > >> > >> A log can be found in this mail, this is the bug when running with 64k page > >> size. > >> I tried this with and without your 2/2 265k patch and also with page size > >> configured to 16k, the error is the same in all cases. > >> > >> I used an earlier version of your patch in the past and it worked fine. > >> Applying this old patch causes the same problem. > >> Therefore I expect that there was some other code changed that breaks with > >> page size != 4k. > > > >This patch seems to solve the problem for me, but I have to run and > >haven't yet worked out if it's the right fix. > > > >diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c > >--- a/mm/bootmem.c > >+++ b/mm/bootmem.c > >@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ static int __init mark_bootmem(unsigned > > unsigned long max; > > > > if (pos < bdata->node_min_pfn || > >- pos >= bdata->node_low_pfn) { > >+ pos > bdata->node_low_pfn) { > > BUG_ON(pos != start); > > continue; > > } > >@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long > > unsigned long start, end; > > > > start = PFN_DOWN(addr); > >- end = PFN_UP(addr + size); > >+ end = PFN_DOWN(addr + size); > > > > return mark_bootmem(start, end, 1, flags); > > } > > > Hollis, if I'm understanding things correctly this patch is no > longer needed if we do the memory reserve in the boot wrapper for > the errata. Correct?
Correct. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev