Signed-off-by: Wan Wei<[email protected]>
diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
index 858fe60..95b1096 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
@@ -2979,6 +2979,7 @@ static int amd64_check_ecc_enabled(struct amd64_pvt *pvt)
/* CLEAR the override, since BIOS controlled it */
ecc_enable_override = 0;
+ ret = 0;
}
return ret;
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47:33AM +0800, wan wei wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Wan Wei<[email protected]>
Thanks for that but I have a patch addressing the issue and wanted
to test it a bit in linux-next before sending it to Linus. I'd much
appreciate it if you gave it a try:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git;a=commit;h=076119c66b80ebc7da2d76c8d414fa9fa0ed577a
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
System | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. M?nchen, Germany
Research | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis M?nchen
(OSRC) | Registergericht M?nchen, HRB Nr. 43632
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:01:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47:33AM +0800, wan wei wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Wan Wei<[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for that but I have a patch addressing the issue and wanted
> to test it a bit in linux-next before sending it to Linus. I'd much
> appreciate it if you gave it a try:
Sorry, I meant
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git;a=commit;h=4ad73bc713339d6c0be7abd9f49f46323ce614b6
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
System | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. M?nchen, Germany
Research | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis M?nchen
(OSRC) | Registergericht M?nchen, HRB Nr. 43632
Thanks for this.
It is the same as one I posted last week or so.
Without it, the module fails to initialize and no polling occurs.
Boris,
In a prior email you indicated that you refactored the function in question. What that in the series of patches you submitted? I think that set is too big to get in the RC branch.
We need this in 2.6.31 in order for the module to even work.
Shall we push my simple one, or your complete refactor?
doug t
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, wan wei <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: wan wei <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH] amd64_edac: fix insmod fail while ecc is enabled
> To: [email protected], [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 10:47 AM
> Signed-off-by: Wan Wei<[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> index 858fe60..95b1096 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> @@ -2979,6 +2979,7 @@ static int
> amd64_check_ecc_enabled(struct amd64_pvt *pvt)
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /*
> CLEAR the override, since BIOS controlled it */
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ecc_enable_override = 0;
> +? ? ? ? ? ?
> ???ret = 0;
> ? ? ? ? }
>
> ? ? ? ? return ret;
>
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:01:26AM -0700, Doug Thompson wrote:
> In a prior email you indicated that you refactored the function in
>question. What that in the series of patches you submitted? I think
>that set is too big to get in the RC branch.
>
> We need this in 2.6.31 in order for the module to even work.
>
> Shall we push my simple one, or your complete refactor?
I wanted to give my refactoring patch a little testing in linux-next but
my gut feeling tells me it would be wiser to go with your fix that late
in the cycle and postpone mine for the next kernel. In the meantime,
it'll see more testing in linux-next.
I'll push the two fixes tomorrow if Linus hasn't pulled yet otherwise
I'll have to wait for -rc6 with your patch, but even that'll do.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] amd64_edac: fix insmod fail while ecc is enabled
> To: "Doug Thompson" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], "wan wei" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 12:43 PM
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:01:26AM -0700, Doug Thompson
> wrote:
> > In a prior email you indicated that you refactored the
> function in
> >question. What that in the series of patches you
> submitted? I think
> >that set is too big to get in the RC branch.
> >
> > We need this in 2.6.31 in order for the module to even
> work.
> >
> > Shall we push my simple one, or your complete
> refactor?
>
> I wanted to give my refactoring patch a little testing in
> linux-next but
> my gut feeling tells me it would be wiser to go with your
> fix that late
> in the cycle and postpone mine for the next kernel. In the
> meantime,
> it'll see more testing in linux-next.
>
> I'll push the two fixes tomorrow if Linus hasn't pulled yet
great, thanks. Since I am going camping on wednesday until next monday, I am short on access let alone time. If you will handle it, that is wonderful
doug t
> otherwise
> I'll have to wait for -rc6 with your patch, but even
> that'll do.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> ? ? Boris.
>