On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Ilya,
>> I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
>> environment.
>> Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot (mark_bootmem).
>>
>> A log can be found in this mail, this is the bug when running with 64k page
>> size.
>> I tried this with and without your 2/2 265k patch and also with page size
>> configured to 16k, the error is the same in all cases.
>>
>> I used an earlier version of your patch in the past and it worked fine.
>> Applying this old patch causes the same problem.
>> Therefore I expect that there was some other code changed that breaks with
>> page size != 4k.
>
>This patch seems to solve the problem for me, but I have to run and
>haven't yet worked out if it's the right fix.
>
>diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c
>--- a/mm/bootmem.c
>+++ b/mm/bootmem.c
>@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ static int __init mark_bootmem(unsigned
> unsigned long max;
>
> if (pos < bdata->node_min_pfn ||
>- pos >= bdata->node_low_pfn) {
>+ pos > bdata->node_low_pfn) {
> BUG_ON(pos != start);
> continue;
> }
>@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long
> unsigned long start, end;
>
> start = PFN_DOWN(addr);
>- end = PFN_UP(addr + size);
>+ end = PFN_DOWN(addr + size);
>
> return mark_bootmem(start, end, 1, flags);
> }
Hollis, if I'm understanding things correctly this patch is no
longer needed if we do the memory reserve in the boot wrapper for
the errata. Correct?
josh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
