* Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > thanks for tracking it down. I pulled that commit for now. But it would
> > be nice to figure out what's going on there.
>
> Zach was right. The unification was broken for 32-bit; it was missing
> the
* Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
thanks for tracking it down. I pulled that commit for now. But it would
be nice to figure out what's going on there.
Zach was right. The unification was broken for 32-bit; it was missing
the actual
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> thanks for tracking it down. I pulled that commit for now. But it would
> be nice to figure out what's going on there.
Zach was right. The unification was broken for 32-bit; it was missing
the actual pushf/popf EFLAGS manipluation (set_iopl_mask()) and
On Friday 11 January 2008 15:03:47 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bisect says...
> >
> > 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b is first bad commit
> > commit 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b
> > Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
* Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bisect says...
>
> 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b is first bad commit
> commit 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b
> Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed Jan 9 13:31:11 2008 +0100
>
> x86:
* Kevin Winchester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bisect says...
4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b is first bad commit
commit 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jan 9 13:31:11 2008 +0100
x86: ioport_{32|64}.c
On Friday 11 January 2008 15:03:47 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kevin Winchester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bisect says...
4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b is first bad commit
commit 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jan 9
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
thanks for tracking it down. I pulled that commit for now. But it would
be nice to figure out what's going on there.
Zach was right. The unification was broken for 32-bit; it was missing
the actual pushf/popf EFLAGS manipluation (set_iopl_mask()) and
I'm no expert, but I happened to notice this go by.
> The first thing I notice about the path is that ioport_32.c and the unified
> ioport.c use __clear_bit,
> while ioport_64.c uses clear_bit.
That doesn't seem too critical.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> +asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned long
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> >>> My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
> >>> successful. The only error I noticed was the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> >>> My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
> >>> successful. The only error I noticed was the
Kevin Winchester wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Kevin Winchester wrote:
>> My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
>> successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
>>
>> hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
>>
>> I'm not sure exactly how to
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure exactly how to debug this. I could bisect, but there
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure exactly how to debug this. I could bisect, but there seems
to be some
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure exactly how to debug this. I could bisect, but there seems
to be some
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure exactly how to debug this. I could bisect, but there
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure exactly how to debug this.
Kevin Winchester wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
I'm not sure
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Kevin Winchester wrote:
My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
successful. The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
I'm no expert, but I happened to notice this go by.
The first thing I notice about the path is that ioport_32.c and the unified
ioport.c use __clear_bit,
while ioport_64.c uses clear_bit.
That doesn't seem too critical.
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
+asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned long regsp)
22 matches
Mail list logo