On 12/10 10:49, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 08:54:21AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
Hi Erick,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:28:37AM -0500, Erick Cafferata wrote:
The following commit introduced a regression on my system.
124049decbb121ec32742c94fb5d9d6bed8f24d8 x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved
and it was backported to stable, stopping the kernel to boot on my system since around 4.17.4. It was reverted on upstream a couple months ago. commit 2a5bda5a624d6471d25e953b9adba5182ab1b51f upstream
This commit seems not a correct pointer. In mainline, commit 124049decbb was reverted by
commit 9fd61bc95130d4971568b89c9548b5e0a4e18e0e Author: Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri Oct 26 15:10:24 2018 -0700Revert "x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved"
and, the original problem was finally fixed by
commit 907ec5fca3dc38d37737de826f06f25b063aa08e Author: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> Date: Fri Oct 26 15:10:15 2018 -0700mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages Patch series "mm: Fix for movable_node boot option", v3.
so I think both patches should be backported onto v4.17.z.
4.17.y and 4.18.y are long end-of-life, there's nothing I can do there.
I can apply the above patches to the 4.19.y tree, is that sufficient?
thanks,
greg k-h
If it were possible to backport it to 4.14 as well. It would be better, but 4.19 is already good. Also, would you port only the revert commit, or also the correct fix for the previous issue?
PD: also, as it was pointed out previously, the correct commit is 9fd61bc95130d4971568b89c9548b5e0a4e18e0e. PD2: sorry about removing the context in the previous mail.