[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 3.6-rc6
Hi Linus,

Em 22-09-2012 15:57, Linus Torvalds escreveu:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Shaun Ruffell <> wrote:
>> I posted patches [1,2,3] that resolve the issue for me. Shaohui Xie
>> also hit the issue and posted a slightly different patch [4]. The
>> patches are currently waiting for Mauro, who I understand is
>> catching up since returning from San Diego, to check them out.
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
> That first patch needs a sign-off from you, since you are passing on
> somebody elses patch.
> Looking at that patch, the patch seems to be a memory leak (?) leaking
> the "channels" allocation, along with fixing an odd and incorrect
> kfree (and access) of mci->csrows[i]. If that is correct, please write
> a proper changelog. The current changelog for that thing is totally
> pointless, and doesn't actually explain what the patch *does*.
> I'd also like some ack's from people, and I'd love to know which
> commit introduced the problem(s). If this problem is new to 3.6, I
> want to know what caused it, and if it is *not* new, then the thing
> needs to be marked for stable. Please?

This was caused by the edac core rewrite I made, merged for 3.6, that
replaced the usage of raw kobj in order to use, instead, struct device.

I tested the patches on several machines and they're OK. It took
me some time to test them, as I got flooded with ~400 patches for
review while I was out for KS/2012... It is taking some time for me to
dig into each of them, especially since I hit into some internal dead

The good news is that we are equipping several machines at Red Hat labs
with different memory configurations, with is allowing us to do a
comprehensive testset on the EDAC x86 drivers. We've got already
some longstanding bugs there, as well as a few recent regressions.

So, in addition to the bugs noticed by Shaun and Fengguang,
I also got bug fixes for 3 EDAC drivers (sb_edac, i3200 and i5000).

> Finally, if I'm supposed to apply patches, I really *really* want to
> see the patches sent to me explicitly, instead of having people post
> pointers to them on the web. I don't apply random stuff on the web, I
> want the "please take this patch" to be a case of people *explicitly*
> sending it to me with the proper sign-offs in place etc.
> IOW, the "hey, you should apply that random patch that wasn't even
> sent to you" approach is not something I accept.

I just updated the patches today on my git tree (so, they should be
popping up tomorrow at -next).

So, I will send you tomorrow a pull request with all fixes I'm aware
of for edac, after the -next merging.

If you prefer otherwise to merge them today, you can get those patches
with my SOB at:

git:// master



The following changes since commit 5698bd757d55b1bb87edd1a9744ab09c142abfc2:

Linux 3.6-rc6 (2012-09-16 14:58:51 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

git:// master

for you to fetch changes up to ded6223cfb75c4b5f61a285eee10df98a0291460:

sb_edac: Avoid overflow errors at memory size calculation (2012-09-23 10:16:36 -0300)

Fengguang Wu (1):
edac_mc: fix kfree calls in the error path

Mauro Carvalho Chehab (3):
i3200_edac: Fix memory rank size
i5000: Fix the memory size calculation with 2R memories
sb_edac: Avoid overflow errors at memory size calculation

Shaun Ruffell (2):
edac: edac_mc_free() cannot assume mem_ctl_info is registered in sysfs
edac: edac_mc no longer deals with kobjects directly

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-23 16:01    [W:0.057 / U:36.844 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site