Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Verification and debugging of memoryinitialisation

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Boot initialisation has always been a bit of a mess with a number of 
> ugly points. While significant amounts of the initialisation is 
> architecture-independent, it trusts of the data received from the 
> architecture layer. This was a mistake in retrospect as it has 
> resulted in a number of difficult-to-diagnose bugs.
> 
> This patchset is an RFC to add some validation and tracing to memory 
> initialisation. It also introduces a few basic defencive measures and 
> depending on a boot parameter, will perform additional tests for 
> errors "that should never occur". I think this would have reduced 
> debugging time for some boot-related problems. The last part of the 
> patchset is a similar fix for the patch "[patch] mm: sparsemem 
> memory_present() memory corruption" that corrects a few more areas 
> where similar errors were made.
> 
> I'm not looking to merge this as-is obviously but are there opinions 
> on whether this is a good idea in principal? Should it be done 
> differently or not at all?

very nice stuff!

  Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>

or rather:

  Very-Strongly-Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/