Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Yes, I do have a system affected (which made me craft the patch
> > in the first place).
> 
> In that case it's very useful to start the commit with:
> 
>   System XYZ crashes during bootup due to a bug in numa= command line option 
>   handling.
> 
> That will also cause me to add an immediate -stable backport tag from me, even if 
> you dont add it. Keeping it all optional and theoretical with 'it may crash' wording 
> just hides the essential piece of information that there's a real system affected by 
> the bug.
> 

I still don't think it meets the stable kernel rules.  The changelog 
explicitly states that we do not want to disable ACPI completely, so the 
only numa= command line option that would possibly be useful on 32-bit is 
numa=off in this case.  If you're compiling a 32-bit kernel for a machine 
with SRAT entries that can't be parsed by the kernel, then there's still 
no explanation as to why CONFIG_NUMA=n won't fix it.
--
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/