2.6.37-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Naga Chumbalkar <[email protected]>

commit a7bd1dafdcc13ec7add4aafc927eb5e3a8d597e6 upstream.

Due to commit 781c5a67f152c17c3e4a9ed9647f8c0be6ea5ae9 it is
likely that the number of areas to scan for BIOS corruption is 0
 -- especially when the first 64K is already reserved
(X86_RESERVE_LOW is 64K by default).

If that's the case then don't set up the scan.

Signed-off-by: Naga Chumbalkar <[email protected]>
LKML-Reference: 
<20110225202838.2229.71011.sendpatch...@nchumbalkar.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/check.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/check.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/check.c
@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ void __init setup_bios_corruption_check(
                addr += size;
        }
 
-       printk(KERN_INFO "Scanning %d areas for low memory corruption\n",
-              num_scan_areas);
+       if (num_scan_areas)
+               printk(KERN_INFO "Scanning %d areas for low memory 
corruption\n", num_scan_areas);
 }
 
 
@@ -143,12 +143,12 @@ static void check_corruption(struct work
 {
        check_for_bios_corruption();
        schedule_delayed_work(&bios_check_work,
-               round_jiffies_relative(corruption_check_period*HZ)); 
+               round_jiffies_relative(corruption_check_period*HZ));
 }
 
 static int start_periodic_check_for_corruption(void)
 {
-       if (!memory_corruption_check || corruption_check_period == 0)
+       if (!num_scan_areas || !memory_corruption_check || 
corruption_check_period == 0)
                return 0;
 
        printk(KERN_INFO "Scanning for low memory corruption every %d 
seconds\n",


_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable

Reply via email to