Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:09:18 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: kexec boot regression |
| |
On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>> [PATCH] x86/pci: intel ioh bus num reg accessing fix > >>>> > >>>> it is above 0x100, so if mmconf is not enable, need to skip it > >>> This works, it kexecs kernels fine. But since 2.6.32 doesn't have the > >>> mmconf problem to begin with, are we now just working around the issue? > >>> SRAT still reports issues, numa doesn't work. > >> that patch will be bullet proof... we need it. > >> > >> also still need to figure out why memmap range is not passed properly. > >> > >> do you mean 2.6.32 kexec 2.6.32 it have worked mmconf and numa in > >> second kernel? > > > > Yes, 2.6.32 booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT > > complaints and NUMA works fine. > > > how about > > current kernel booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT > complaints and NUMA works fine. ?
Yes, that's exactly what happens, see the previous reply I sent. mmconf still complains, though.
-- Jens Axboe
| |