Your message dated Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:48:16 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug#631436: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #332472,
regarding kernel-patch-badram: Badram appears not to work for small bad regions
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
332472: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332472
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: kernel-patch-badram
Version: 2.6.12.0-1
Severity: important
I just added 2GB of RAM to my system (for a total of 3GB), and memtest86
reports that I have a bad region of memory. The badram pattern suggested
by memtest86 is 0x5c8e400c,0xfffffffc. I do plan on exchanging these bad
DIMMs for good ones, but I can't do that for a couple of weeks, so I
thought I'd just work around the problem for now.
After patching my kernel and rebooting, I checked the Memory line in the
dmesg output as suggested by the documentation. It reported 0k space used
by badram. I figured since the bad region was only four bytes, perhaps it
was just rounding down. To be sure, I changed the mask to 0xfffff000, to
mark 4KiB, a full page, as bad. But the kernel still reported 0k badram.
I tried using a mask of 0xffff0000 to mark 64KiB, 16 full pages, as bad.
Still 0k badram, but I did notice another change: The reported available
memory decreased by 16MiB! Looking back at my previous attempts, and also
comparing to the results when I used no badram parameter, I found that the
reported available memory did not change until I use the larger mask.
It appears that either badram is not working or, perhaps, that the memory
display calculated by the badram patch is incorrect. I'm not sure how to
tell which is the case, hence my decision to mark this bug "important", on
the grounds that the patch may not be excluding my bad memory from the pool
available for allocation.
Here's a list of the results I got with various badram configs:
no badram option
Memory: 3114472k/3145408k available (1616k kernel code, 29756k reserved,
728k data, 172k init, 2227904k highmem, 0k BadRAM)
Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda1 ro badram= 0x5c8e400c,0xfffffffc
Memory: 3114472k/3145408k available (1616k kernel code, 29756k reserved,
728k data, 172k init, 2227904k highmem, 0k BadRAM)
Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda1 ro badram=0x5c8e400c,0xfffff000
Memory: 3114472k/3145408k available (1616k kernel code, 29756k reserved,
728k data, 172k init, 2227904k highmem, 0k BadRAM)
Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda1 ro badram=0x5c8e400c,0xffff8000
Memory: 3114472k/3145408k available (1616k kernel code, 29756k reserved,
728k data, 172k init, 2227904k highmem, 0k BadRAM)
Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda1 ro badram=0x5c8e400c,0xffff0000
Memory: 3098088k/3145408k available (1616k kernel code, 29756k reserved,
728k data, 172k init, 2227904k highmem, 0k BadRAM
My kernel config is just a copy of the 2.6.11 AMD K8 package config,
except with badram turned on, obviously.
Thanks,
Shawn
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11badram
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages kernel-patch-badram depends on:
ii bash 3.0-16 The GNU Bourne Again SHell
ii grep-dctrl 2.6.7 Grep Debian package information
ii patch 2.5.9-2 Apply a diff file to an original
kernel-patch-badram recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.6.28.2-1.1+rm
Dear submitter,
as the package kernel-patch-badram has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports. We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.
For details on the removal, please see http://bugs.debian.org/631436
The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.
This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
[email protected].
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Luca Falavigna (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)
--- End Message ---
