Re: + proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely-cpuset-fix-2.patchadded to -mm tree

[Paul Jackson]

Andrew wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> We presently ignore the return values from initcalls.  But that can carry
> useful debugging information.  So print it out if it's non-zero.
> 
> Also make that warning message more friendly by printing the name of the
> initcall function.

I tried this patch on my sicko kernel, and the following
additional line came out, as expected:

  initcall at 0xa0000001007cc4c0: topology_init+0x0/0x280(): returned with error code -12

Looks good.

Acked-by: Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>


> > I should stare at the code between this point of initial failure and
> > the point that the house of cards finally collapsed and see if
> > something should have squeaked sooner.
> 
> Probably a panic() in your topology_init().

Yup - a panic it should be.

I guess that patch should be sent via my friendly ia64 arch maintainer.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/