Re: [Xen-devel] [x86/time] 03fa63cc96: ACPI_Error:Table[DMAR]is_not_invalidated_during_early_boot_stage(#/tbxface -#)

[Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
>
>> commit: 03fa63cc96ab35592e0a7d522b8edbc1e6b02d22 ("x86/time: Initialize 
>> interrupt mode behind timer init")
>
>> +----------------+------------+------------+
>> |                | 43436935b7 | 03fa63cc96 |
>> +----------------+------------+------------+
>> | boot_successes | 0          | 4          |
>> +----------------+------------+------------+
>
>So 03fa63cc96 makes the box boot again. I'm confused as usual by the
>output of this tool.,
> 
>> kern  :info  : [    0.005000] tsc: Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>> kern  :info  : [    0.006000] tsc: Detected 2195.020 MHz processor
>> kern  :info  : [    0.007000] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value 
>> calculated using timer frequency.. 4390.04 BogoMIPS (lpj=2195020)
>> kern  :info  : [    0.008001] pid_max: default: 90112 minimum: 704
>> kern  :info  : [    0.009037] ACPI: Core revision 20170303
>> kern  :err   : [    0.010002] ACPI Error: Table [DMAR] is not invalidated 
>> during early boot stage (20170303/tbxface-193)
>
>Sure we have a error message here, but compared to what? Compared to
>something which does not boot at all?

Sorry for the confusion, here commit 43436935b7 boot failed due to OOM which
happened at the late stage of kernel boot while the ACPI error showed at the
early boot stage for commit 03fa63cc96 and it didn't appear in 43436935b7's
dmesg.

Thanks,
Xiaolong

>
>Thanks,
>
>       tglx
>

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