On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 20:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:12PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> > What is solution for this regression?
>
> Revert the patch for now, we'll add it back once we've got the UEFI
> pagetable set up.
FYI I've got a proof of concept patch
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 20:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:12PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
What is solution for this regression?
Revert the patch for now, we'll add it back once we've got the UEFI
pagetable set up.
FYI I've got a proof of concept patch that
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:12PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> What is solution for this regression?
Revert the patch for now, we'll add it back once we've got the UEFI
pagetable set up.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >
>> > I managed to find a machine to reproduce this on and it looks like the
>> > ASUS firmware engineers are upto their old tricks of referencing
>> > physical addresses after we've
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
I managed to find a machine to reproduce this on and it looks like the
ASUS firmware engineers are upto their old tricks of referencing
physical addresses after
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:12PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
What is solution for this regression?
Revert the patch for now, we'll add it back once we've got the UEFI
pagetable set up.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
FYI I tried to contact support, here's their answer:
Dear Valued Customer,
Thank you for contacting ASUS Customer Service.
My name is Carter and it's my pleasure to help you with your problem.
I am afraid to say this board doesn't support linux,so we can't asure the
compability.
It is
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > I managed to find a machine to reproduce this on and it looks like the
> > ASUS firmware engineers are upto their old tricks of referencing
> > physical addresses after we've taken control of the memory map,
>
> Yippie. On such
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
I managed to find a machine to reproduce this on and it looks like the
ASUS firmware engineers are upto their old tricks of referencing
physical addresses after we've taken control of the memory map,
Yippie. On such systems we
FYI I tried to contact support, here's their answer:
Dear Valued Customer,
Thank you for contacting ASUS Customer Service.
My name is Carter and it's my pleasure to help you with your problem.
I am afraid to say this board doesn't support linux,so we can't asure the
compability.
It is
>>> On 07.08.12 at 11:30, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> That's not surprising. The question really is what goes wrong
>> when the call is being made - page fault, some other fault, or
>> silent hang. A page fault would point to an incorrect memory
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> That's not surprising. The question really is what goes wrong
> when the call is being made - page fault, some other fault, or
> silent hang. A page fault would point to an incorrect memory
> map as the prime candidate for causing the
>>> On 07.08.12 at 05:06, JérômeCarretero wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
> Jérôme Carretero wrote:
>
>> For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
>> So far:
>> [...]
>> Maybe I can get more...
>
> With the following:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
>>> On 07.08.12 at 01:29, JérômeCarretero wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
> "Jan Beulich" wrote:
>
>> >>> On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero wrote:
>> > If it helps:
>> >
>> > - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
>> > I don't quite understand
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
That's not surprising. The question really is what goes wrong
when the call is being made - page fault, some other fault, or
silent hang. A page fault would point to an incorrect memory
map as the prime candidate for causing the problem. My
On 07.08.12 at 11:30, Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
That's not surprising. The question really is what goes wrong
when the call is being made - page fault, some other fault, or
silent hang. A page fault would point to an
On 07.08.12 at 01:29, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I
On 07.08.12 at 05:06, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
[...]
Maybe I can get more...
With the following:
diff --git
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
> So far:
> [...]
> Maybe I can get more...
With the following:
diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
index 2dc29f5..46729f3 100644
---
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:16:27 -0400
Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
> I don't quite understand it),
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
- (in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c) when making efi_get_time()
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
"Jan Beulich" wrote:
> >>> On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero wrote:
> > If it helps:
> >
> > - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
> > I don't quite understand it),
> > - you can suggest some modifications and at least I
>>> On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero wrote:
> If it helps:
>
> - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
> I don't quite understand it),
> - you can suggest some modifications and at least I can test them
What would help most would be the full kernel log up to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:08:03 +0100
"Jan Beulich" wrote:
> with the change at hand I merely tried to be proactive).
Jan,
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications and at least I can test
>>> On 06.08.12 at 14:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> In any case, without having seen _how_ things break I don't
>> think a decision should be taken if/how to address this
>> (apparent) regression.
>
> Machines that previously
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> In any case, without having seen _how_ things break I don't
> think a decision should be taken if/how to address this
> (apparent) regression.
Machines that previously worked no longer work. That's a pretty strong
argument in favour
>>> On 06.08.12 at 00:28, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 02:29 PM, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
>> and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
>> Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into
On 06.08.12 at 00:28, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 08/05/2012 02:29 PM, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
In any case, without having seen _how_ things break I don't
think a decision should be taken if/how to address this
(apparent) regression.
Machines that previously worked no longer work. That's a pretty strong
argument in favour of
On 06.08.12 at 14:52, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
In any case, without having seen _how_ things break I don't
think a decision should be taken if/how to address this
(apparent) regression.
Machines that
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:08:03 +0100
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
with the change at hand I merely tried to be proactive).
Jan,
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications and at
On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications and at least I can test them
What would help most would be the full kernel
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:16:27 -0400
Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
- (in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c) when making
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
[...]
Maybe I can get more...
With the following:
diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
index 2dc29f5..46729f3 100644
On 08/05/2012 02:29 PM, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else to do.
Bingo, bacef661: x86-64/efi: Use EFI to
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else to do.
Bingo, bacef661: x86-64/efi: Use EFI to
On 08/05/2012 02:29 PM, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else
38 matches
Mail list logo
