On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 11:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 2.6.38-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > ------------------ > > From: James Bottomley <[email protected]> > > commit 4a5fa3590f09999f6db41bc386bce40848fa9f63 upstream. > > Slub makes assumptions about page_to_nid() which are violated by > DISCONTIGMEM and !NUMA. This violation results in a panic because > page_to_nid() can be non-zero for pages in the discontiguous ranges and > this leads to a null return by get_node(). The assertion by the > maintainer is that DISCONTIGMEM should only be allowed when NUMA is also > defined. However, at least six architectures: alpha, ia64, m32r, m68k, > mips, parisc violate this. The panic is a regression against slab, so > just mark slub broken in the problem configuration to prevent users > reporting these panics.
This stable series also included the patches: commit 6a682f634ba9615d3498d1e20a23e9d4fcb39f16 Author: David Rientjes <[email protected]> Date: Wed Apr 20 19:27:13 2011 -0700 set memory ranges in N_NORMAL_MEMORY when onlined commit d9b41e0b54fd7e164daf1e9c539c1070398aa02e upstream. commit 8858587af25efc06d5cce42676786b3d7a9160f2 Author: Michael Schmitz <[email protected]> Date: Tue Apr 26 14:51:53 2011 +1200 m68k/mm: Set all online nodes in N_NORMAL_MEMORY commit 4aac0b4815ba592052758f4b468f253d383dc9d6 upstream. which look like they're supposed to make slub work on these two architectures (parisc and m68k). Do they? If not, do they fix a different problem? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
