I'm still confused/concerned.... In particular, I have memories of a
change for manufacturing test to cause the systems to wake up on
multi-cast, to enable the mass suspend/resume testing of units.
Andres, did this ever go by chance into the 62x series of builds (as
opposed to being a separate kernel RPM?
If so, at which build did it go in?
My understanding of the situation is:
623 - last fully tested MP build
624 - first attempt at DCON power cycle hammer code,
missing a case.
625 - most recent build, only intended for manufacturing test
and burn-in, with working DCON power cycle hammer code.
- Jim
On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 02:27 -0500, Mary Lou Jepsen wrote:
> thanks arnold.
> - Mary Lou
>
> On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 14:40 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Actually, I had asked our test engineer in CSMC to prepare 625 for the
> > factory suspend/resume test tomorrow. They are doing this right now. It
> > means we should have both 624 and 625 test image to be ready tomorrow. We
> > can make decision which image we want to use in the factory suspend/resume
> > test after we confirm the test result of the 4 machines that were failed
> > with DCON problem before.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Arnold Kao
> > Quanta Computer Inc.
> > Tel : 886-3-327-2345 EXT:18958
> > Fax : 886-3-328-9780
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard A. Smith
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:46 PM
> > To: John Watlington
> > Cc: Kim Quirk; Jim Gettys; Arnold Kao (高顯宗); Mary Lou Jepsen; devel; Andres
> > Salomon
> > Subject: Re: MP Build... FYI
> >
> > John Watlington wrote:
> >
> > > Quanta wants assurance that the software workaround which was broken in
> > > #4479 is fixed.
> > > Richard's testing is necessary to confirm this. It is also essential
> > > that the kernel fix
> > > which is theoretically the only difference between 624 and 625 be part
> > > of the production
> > > test code to further confirm this. If Quanta sees this problem AT ALL
> > > in the production
> > > testing, there will be pressure to halt until further hardware/software
> > > fixes are found.
> >
> > I'm getting a slightly different story. I was trying to meet with
> > people yesterday to discuss the whole mfg testing procedure so I knew
> > what was going on and what I would need to do to get the new kernel into
> > the Run-In image.
> >
> > Arnold tells me that he thinks its too late to get the DCON workaround
> > kernel into the Run-In image. He suggestion was that if we see a DCON
> > problem that we pull the machine out of the rack, update the kernel and
> > then re-add it back into the testing.
> >
>
--
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
