On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
> patch. So the first patch is an extra defence against that. (Though we
> could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)
I think I'd rather just panic - if you have allocation issues during
early boot, the machine is hosed anyway - and then get rid of the
first patch?
Willing to send out a new patch along those lines (and with UML added)?
Thanks,
Linus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/ca+55afzz3fuskrq33nidghka3ugv65sbrc+n-h8nludrusb...@mail.gmail.com
