On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:24:06PM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 08:07:48PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Is that with just the code movement patch or your feature patch
> > added too? If the later can you test it with only code movement
> > (and compare against vanilla kernel). at least code movement
> > only should behave exactly the same as unpatched kernel.
>
> You misread. Unpatched kernel does not work. That's why I gave the
> git reference of the kernel too. Patched kernel does not work either,
> unsurprisingly (bios gives correct tables on that box).
Ok, I'm trying to debug it, and it's a pain. It's a timing issue,
mmcfg write accesses are too slow for something. The get_base_addr()
call is enough to slow things down too much, which explains why the
fundamentally simpler x86-64 code works without a hitch.
Finding out what it is too slow for, though, is an interesting
proposition. It's not entirely obvious it is actually related to the
sata accesses.
OG.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
