From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:00:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Verification and debugging of memory initialisation Message-ID: <20080416140018.GB24383@elte.hu> References: <20080416135058.1346.65546.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080416135058.1346.65546.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton List-ID: * Mel Gorman wrote: > Boot initialisation has always been a bit of a mess with a number of > ugly points. While significant amounts of the initialisation is > architecture-independent, it trusts of the data received from the > architecture layer. This was a mistake in retrospect as it has > resulted in a number of difficult-to-diagnose bugs. > > This patchset is an RFC to add some validation and tracing to memory > initialisation. It also introduces a few basic defencive measures and > depending on a boot parameter, will perform additional tests for > errors "that should never occur". I think this would have reduced > debugging time for some boot-related problems. The last part of the > patchset is a similar fix for the patch "[patch] mm: sparsemem > memory_present() memory corruption" that corrects a few more areas > where similar errors were made. > > I'm not looking to merge this as-is obviously but are there opinions > on whether this is a good idea in principal? Should it be done > differently or not at all? very nice stuff! Acked-by: Ingo Molnar or rather: Very-Strongly-Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org