On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:02:04AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> Tested-by: Bryan O'Donoghue
Thanks Bryan!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:48 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:08:40AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So yes, this needs to be fixed too.
>
> Yes indeed. So the diff below seems to work with Bryan's simple test
> case.
>
> Bryan, can you confirm on your box pls?
>
> ---
>
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 17:31 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 17:22 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Borislav Petkov
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:08:40AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So yes, this needs to be fixed too.
Yes indeed. So the diff below seems to work with Bryan's simple test
case.
Bryan, can you confirm on your box pls?
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
index dea
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> Looks like it lacks that one.
> >>
> >> # grep -i fxsr /proc/cpuinfo; echo $?
> >> 1
> >
> > Ok, so looking at where the warning comes fro
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Looks like it lacks that one.
>>
>> # grep -i fxsr /proc/cpuinfo; echo $?
>> 1
>
> Ok, so looking at where the warning comes from:
>
> [ 14.714533] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 8
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue
wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 17:22 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Borislav Petkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > > Looks like it lacks that one.
>> > >
>> >
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:15:15PM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> root@galileo:~# ./fpu
> f is 10.00 g is 10.10
Hmm, ok, I can *actually* reproduce it in kvm+qemu with 486 CPU type
(which should be close to quark AFAIK).
Debugging continues...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #1
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 17:49 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:45:21PM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > It works but user-space FPU is broken; something's wrong with the
> > initial state of the FPU regs - it looks as though they aren't
> > being
> > properly initialized a
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:45:21PM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> It works but user-space FPU is broken; something's wrong with the
> initial state of the FPU regs - it looks as though they aren't being
> properly initialized and FPU context in the signal handler is wrong
> too.
What does your t
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 17:22 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Borislav Petkov
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Looks like it lacks that one.
> > >
> > > # grep -i fxsr /proc/cpuinfo; echo $?
> > > 1
> >
> > Ok, so
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Looks like it lacks that one.
>>
>> # grep -i fxsr /proc/cpuinfo; echo $?
>> 1
>
> Ok, so looking at where the warning comes from:
>
> [ 14.714533] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 8
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:31:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Looks like it lacks that one.
>
> # grep -i fxsr /proc/cpuinfo; echo $?
> 1
Ok, so looking at where the warning comes from:
[ 14.714533] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 823 at
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:163 fpu__clear+0x8c/0x160
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:48:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> He-he, my cursor stays on
>> if (!use_eager_fpu() || !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) {
>> while I was having a lunch. So far got from datasheet that some kind
>>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:48:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> He-he, my cursor stays on
> if (!use_eager_fpu() || !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) {
> while I was having a lunch. So far got from datasheet that some kind
> of FPU is present there.
>
> eagerfpu=auto doesn't fix
> eager
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I've Cc:-ed more FPU developers. Mail quoted below. I don't have a Quark
> system to
> test this on, but maybe others have an idea why this warning triggers?
>
> My thinking is that it's related to:
>
> 58122bf1d856 x86/fpu: Default eagerf
I've Cc:-ed more FPU developers. Mail quoted below. I don't have a Quark system
to
test this on, but maybe others have an idea why this warning triggers?
My thinking is that it's related to:
58122bf1d856 x86/fpu: Default eagerfpu=on on all CPUs
Thanks,
Ingo
* Andy Shevchenko wrot
Today tried first time after long break to boot Intel Quark SoC with
most recent linux-next. Got the following warning:
[ 14.714533] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 823 at
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:163 fpu__clear+0x8c/0x160
[ 14.726603] Modules linked in:
[ 14.729910] CPU: 0 PID: 823 Comm: kw
18 matches
Mail list logo
