| To: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel issues on R4000/R4000 SC and MC |
| From: | tsbogend@alpha.franken.de (Thomas Bogendoerfer) |
| Date: | Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:36:18 +0100 |
| Cc: | ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sam@catalyst.net.nz |
| In-reply-to: | <20070201.190717.55145997.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20070131130926.GA29562@linux-mips.org> <20070201.190717.55145997.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:07:17PM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:09:26 +0000, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote: > > Anyway, the issue boiled up again last week and was supposedly fixed for > > linux-2.6.17-rc7 which I've just merged. I'd like to ask somebody with > > one of the affected CPUs to test this. Below Nick Piggin's test program. > > What is the expected output of the test program? I can confirm, that it kills R4400SC/MC machines. I saw some "detected softlock" messages. With just one zero page (CPU without VCE) everything is fine Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ] |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Question about signal syscalls !, Franck Bui-Huu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Advice needed., Sergio Aguayo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel issues on R4000/R4000 SC and MC, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Next by Thread: | Question about signal syscalls !, Franck Bui-Huu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |