On 05/30/2010 01:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> This bothers me, because it really feels like something is fundamentally
>>> broken in UML tryingto track the upstream architecture, and this is just
>>> a bandage.
>>
>> First of all, scratch that patch. It is indeed dumb idea to sprinkle UML
>> s
> > This bothers me, because it really feels like something is fundamentally
> > broken in UML tryingto track the upstream architecture, and this is just
> > a bandage.
>
> First of all, scratch that patch. It is indeed dumb idea to sprinkle UML
> special cases in x86 just because they include it.
From: "H. Peter Anvin"
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:36:16AM -0700
> On 05/30/2010 10:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Obviously UML cannot stomach callee reg-saving trickery
> > introduced with d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d (x86:
> > Add optimized popcnt variants) and oopses during b
On 05/30/2010 10:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Obviously UML cannot stomach callee reg-saving trickery
> introduced with d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d (x86:
> Add optimized popcnt variants) and oopses during boot:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127522065202435&w=2
>
> Go ahead a
Obviously UML cannot stomach callee reg-saving trickery
introduced with d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d (x86:
Add optimized popcnt variants) and oopses during boot:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127522065202435&w=2
Go ahead and fall back to the software hweight* routines on UML.
LKM
From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 01:57:05PM +0200
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 13:39, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > 2010/5/27 Toralf Förster :
> >> I bisected it to this :
>
> > After fixing the missing/superfluous slab inclusion issues, I bisected
> > it further to
> >
> > c
From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:18:21PM +0200
> Works, thanks!
>
> BTW, if you want to check yourself:
>
> make ARCH=um defconfig
> make ACH=um
> ./linux
>
> If it panics because it cannot mount the root file system, it works.
Cool, thank you both for testin
Borislav Petkov wrote at 17:02:14
> Can you guys check whether the following fixes the issue?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> index 545776e..c9dad12 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 17:02, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven
> Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 01:57:05PM +0200
>
>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 13:39, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>> > 2010/5/27 Toralf Förster :
>> >> I bisected it to this :
>>
>> > After fixing the missing/superflu
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 13:39, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 2010/5/27 Toralf Förster :
>> I bisected it to this :
> After fixing the missing/superfluous slab inclusion issues, I bisected
> it further to
>
> commit d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d
> Author: Borislav Petkov
> Date: Fri Ma
2010/5/27 Toralf Förster :
> I bisected it to this :
>
> There are only 'skip'ped commits left to test.
> The first bad commit could be any of:
> 4677d4a53e0d565742277e8913e91c821453e63e
> d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d
> 1527bc8b928dd1399c3d3467dd47d9ede210978a
> c59bd5688299cddb71183e15
11 matches
Mail list logo
