Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:02 +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>
>>>Can you explain in a little bit more detail why this matters, and
>>>exactly how it fixes your problem. I'm not sure it's correct.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, okay.
>>
>>It's just because free_area[] is not initaialized at all if this is not called.
>>It is list.next and list.prev has bad value.
>>Then, the first free_page(page) will cause panic.
>
>
> Hmmm. I _think_ you're just trying to do some things at runtime that I
> didn't intend. In the patch I pointed to in the last mail, look at what
> I did in hot_add_zone_init(). It does some of what
> free_area_init_core() does, but only the most minimal bits. Basically:
>
> zone_wait_table_init(zone, size_pages);
> init_currently_empty_zone(zone, phys_start_pfn, size_pages);
> zone_pcp_init(zone);
>
> Your way may also be valid, but I broke out init_currently_empty_zone()
> for a reason, and I think this was it. I don't think we want to be
> calling free_area_init_core() itself at runtime.
>
Okay... I'll read what you done more carefully and find another approach.
I guess what I need is that free_area[] is initialized before the first free_page[].
thanks,
-- Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
