> > Oops. You moved the multiply by sizeof(struct ia64_mca_cpu) up into
> > the mca_bootmem() function to make it very specific to this use. But
> > mutiply has higher precedence than addition.
>
> Oh crap - good catch.
> Shall I resubmit a corrected patch?
Are there any other ways that we might
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 03:32:13PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> - mca_data = alloc_bootmem(sizeof(struct ia64_mca_cpu)
> - * NR_CPUS + KERNEL_STACK_SIZE);
> + mca_data = mca_bootmem(NR_CPUS + KERNEL_STACK_SIZE);
>
> Oops. You moved the mu
- mca_data = alloc_bootmem(sizeof(struct ia64_mca_cpu)
-* NR_CPUS + KERNEL_STACK_SIZE);
+ mca_data = mca_bootmem(NR_CPUS + KERNEL_STACK_SIZE);
Oops. You moved the multiply by sizeof(struct ia64_mca_cpu) up into
the mca_bootmem()
Fix the following section mismatch warnings:
WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x41902): Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:__alloc_bootmem (between 'ia64_mca_cpu_init' and 'ia64_do_tlb_purge')
WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x49222): Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:__alloc_bootmem (between 'r
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:36:14AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 06:27:44AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:18:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static void *__init_refok alloc
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 06:27:44AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:18:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > > +static void *__init_refok alloc_rte(unsigned long size)
> > > +{
> > > + return alloc_bootmem(size
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:18:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> > +static void *__init_refok alloc_rte(unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > + return alloc_bootmem(size);
> > +}
>
> That makes no sense at all. If we ever call that after f
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> +static void *__init_refok alloc_rte(unsigned long size)
> +{
> + return alloc_bootmem(size);
> +}
That makes no sense at all. If we ever call that after freeing initmem,
we are screwed, period. Sounds like __init fodder.
-
T
