Re: [PATCH] x86: fix ioport unification on 32-bit [was: Re: hwclock failure in x86.git]

2008-01-14 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [PATCH] x86: fix ioport unification on 32-bit [was: Re: hwclock failure in x86.git]

2008-01-14 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

[PATCH] x86: fix ioport unification on 32-bit [was: Re: hwclock failure in x86.git]

2008-01-11 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-11 Thread Miguel Botón
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]> > >

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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:

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-11 Thread Miguel Botón
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

[PATCH] x86: fix ioport unification on 32-bit [was: Re: hwclock failure in x86.git]

2008-01-11 Thread Chris Wright
* 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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Zach Brown
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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

hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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

hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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.

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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:

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Kevin Winchester
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:

Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

2008-01-10 Thread Zach Brown
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)