[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the "hwclock" program

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> do you agree with the changelog and can i add your Signed-off-by ?

Sure. One thing I'd still like to see is that crazy "again" vs "survive"
mess for x86-64 vs x86-32. I think the patch as posted will cause a new
warning on x86-32 due to "unused label 'again'" or similar.

It's totally insane that we have two different versions of the oom
handling for x86. I don't know why we do that, it's probably historical,
and I _suspect_ that the 32-bit one has gotten a lot more testing.

And not just because there have been more of the 32-bit kernels around,
but also because low-memory situations are probably more common on 32-bit
setups. But I dunno.

So I would suggest you just pick the x86-32 version of that oom handling
thing too. Unless you know some deep reason why the 64-bit one would be


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-13 17:49    [W:0.113 / U:8.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site