On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:55:05 -0500 Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. It went into 624 and 625. The DCON power cycle thing is in all builds, but the proper register init path is only in 625. > > 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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
