Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>]

On 17/10/2012 08:41, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So I just now realized that a similar change was already done
> by 23736:31683aa4bfb3 and then reverted by
> 23760:ae10d7804168. Nothing was done subsequently to
> address the actual problem(s). It is quite obvious that the more
> relaxed check uncovers other bugs in the ERST code, yet looking
> at the Linux history of the corresponding file doesn't reveal any
> fix the lack of which would explain an outright hang (rather than
> a crash, as I would expect to be the result of e.g. the missing
> ioremap()-s added by 0bbba38a61283a55f2061ab3e0910c572d19f462.
> 
> Most of the other changes are cosmetic or pstore related, so I
> wonder whether instead of reverting again we should try pulling
> in this one extra fix.
> 
> If reverting is preferred (or turns out necessary if that second
> fix doesn't help), we should settle on the disposition of the whole
> APEI/ERST code, as my conclusion is that it is pretty much
> unmaintained since its original contribution over two years ago.

Perhaps we reverted before because we decided that this advertised table
size was a bug, and handling it just opened us to other bugs lurking in the
table?

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel