> Which is probably a good idea.
> AFAIK Numa, possibly Apic tables must be available quite early.
NUMA setup does not use the DSDT, but separate special tables
(SRAT/SLIT). It also doesn't require the ACPI interpreter, these
are all simple static tables.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 09:51 +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 19:46 +0100, Éric Piel wrote:
> > 12/02/08 06:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote/a écrit:
> > > [skipping the populate_rootfs discussion as it seems you have a better
> > > handle on that than me]
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 19:46 +0100, Éric Piel wrote:
> 12/02/08 06:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote/a écrit:
> > [skipping the populate_rootfs discussion as it seems you have a better
> > handle on that than me]
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:09PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
> >>> And while we're at
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:02:36PM +0100, ??ric Piel wrote:
> It's been a week and no one has screamed, so I guess the idea looks fine
> to everyone :-)
>
> Here is a boot tested patch for integration. In addition to the previous
> version, it removes also rootfs_initcall(), and uses fs_initcall_
12/02/08 00:41, Éric Piel wrote/a écrit:
> 11/02/08 14:47, Sergey Vlasov wrote/a écrit:
>>> Would that seem an acceptable solution? Or what other way exists?
>> Disabling call_usermodehelper() until all core initializers had
>> completed would fix the problem too; will such change be acceptable?
>
12/02/08 06:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote/a écrit:
> [skipping the populate_rootfs discussion as it seems you have a better
> handle on that than me]
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:09PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
>>> And while we're at it the file reading thing in there is utter crap
>>> aswell. Y
[skipping the populate_rootfs discussion as it seems you have a better
handle on that than me]
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:58:09PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
> >And while we're at it the file reading thing in there is utter crap
> >aswell. You really should be using the firmware loader which works
>
11/02/08 14:47, Sergey Vlasov wrote/a écrit:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:58:09 +0100 Eric Piel wrote:
>
>> I guess the problem that Linus solved by moving populate_rootfs()
>> happens only rarely or on only few configurations. Linus, do you
>> remember what kind of problem it was? How can I reproduce
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:58:09 +0100 Eric Piel wrote:
> (adding some CC's)
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:12:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> Folks, moving this call around hidden behing in completely unreviewed
> >> acpi junk is not acceptable.
> >>
> >> Either p
(adding some CC's)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:12:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Folks, moving this call around hidden behing in completely unreviewed
acpi junk is not acceptable.
Either populate_rootfs _is_ safe to be called earlier and then we should
do it always
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:12:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Folks, moving this call around hidden behing in completely unreviewed
> acpi junk is not acceptable.
>
> Either populate_rootfs _is_ safe to be called earlier and then we should
> do it always or it's not. Either way such a chan
Folks, moving this call around hidden behing in completely unreviewed
acpi junk is not acceptable.
Either populate_rootfs _is_ safe to be called earlier and then we should
do it always or it's not. Either way such a change should be posted
separately and reviewd on lkml.
Len, can you please reve
12 matches
Mail list logo
