On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, I wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder whether Finn's memtest patch merely exposed another MM bug
> >
>
> A kernel patch may be easier than a bootloader patch (even if this is a
> bootloader bug) particularly if it affects multiple platforms.
>
> A partial revert of my patch (below) will probably avoid the issue, but
> with the side effect that use of memtest will clobber the initrd.
>
Maybe that's for the best now that the initrd/initramfs has grown so
large. That portion of memory is presently skipped by memtest, which means
you'd have to disable the initrd to get good coverage from memtest anyway.
> The initrd and memtest features aren't usually needed together. At the
> time when I needed the memtest feature I did not have confidence in the
> hardeare. An initrd wasn't very useful at that point.
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
> index 3a2bb2e8fdad..92f1b9268dff 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
> @@ -326,6 +326,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> panic("No configuration setup");
> }
>
> + paging_init();
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
> if (m68k_ramdisk.size) {
> memblock_reserve(m68k_ramdisk.addr, m68k_ramdisk.size);
> @@ -335,8 +337,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> }
> #endif
>
> - paging_init();
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_NATFEAT
> nf_init();
> #endif
>
>
