On 6/11/08, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 23:26 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
>  > Hi Andrew,
>  >
>  > The 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 kernel panic's, while booting up on the x86_64
>  > box with the attached .config file.
>
>
> Just to save everyone the trouble, it looks like this is a new BUG_ON().
>  
>  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.26-rc5/2.6.26-rc5-m...
>
>  The machine in question is a single-node machine, but with
>  CONFIG_NUMA=y.
>

Yes. Sorry, I already responded in a separate e-mail (see below), but
that obviously missed all the Ccs. So here it goes again...:

I'm betting

commit a953e4597abd51b74c99e0e3b7074532a60fd031
Author: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Date:   Mon May 12 21:21:12 2008 +0200

    sched: replace MAX_NUMNODES with nr_node_ids in kernel/sched.c

will fix this if it's not in -mm2 already.

The BUG() is simply there to prevent silent corruption. Mike already
has a patch that changes it to a WARN(), but it obviously didn't get
through (either)...


Vegard


On 6/11/08, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On 6/9/08, Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  > Hi Andrew,
>  >
>  > The 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 kernel panic's, while booting up on the x86_64
>  > box with the attached .config file.
>
>  (Please apologize for the strange way of replying to this message. It
>  seems that LKML gave up delivering to my address, so I'm currently
>  reading off lkml.org.)
>
>  This should already be fixed, but Andrew refused to apply the patch
>  before releasing the -mm1 (and -mm2 apparently). I'm attaching the
>  patch, can you see if it helps?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>
>  Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036