Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:22:03 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling |
| |
* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> >>> On 07.01.11 at 13:57, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > > > >> >>> On 07.01.11 at 10:58, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > > >> >> However, the problem my patch addresses has been long standing > >> >> (I noted it with our .32 based kernel, but according to my looking at > >> >> the code it would go back to at least .27), so I'd like to ask for it to > >> >> be merged independently (and I should probably have copied stable > >> >> too), unless (quite unlikely) Tejun's merge is intended to also be > >> >> applied to stable kernels. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't think this should be targeted to -stable since it's not a bugfix; > >> > this is adding a feature that allows you to disable acpi parsing of the > >> > SRAT on i386. > >> > >> How is this not a bug fix if it allows a system to boot that previously > >> didn't? > > > > btw., that's an absolutely key piece of information that REALLY should have > > been > > included in the changelog of the first patch. It is more important than all > > of the > > changelog. > > Quoting that text: "In order to be able to suppress the use of SRAT > tables that 32-bit Linux can't deal with (possibly leading to a non- > bootable system, without disabling ACPI altogether), move the > "numa=" option handling to common code." > > To me it says just that. And of course, not every system with a > not understood SRAT would be yielded non-bootable, hence the > wording "possibly leading to ...".
Your -stable comment above made it appear to me as if you knew about a specific system that crashed this way? As long as it's only theoretical i'm not sure it warrants a -stable backport.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |