> > - Is there any chance I can get it into the stable 2.6.26.X updates?
> > (Who should I ask, or are only developers allowed to lobby for this
> > sort of thing?)
>
> after the patch get into linus tree. Greg will put the patch into 2.6.26.X
OK, thanks a bunch.
> > - Are you worried about the potential problems of a quirk-based approach?
> > What if many more people experience a similar regression once 2.6.26 or
> > later appears in their distribution? I'm sure you don't want to have to
> > write a different quirk for each individual's hardware, and this problem
> > did not arise with the approach used for resource management in 2.6.25.
>
> this patch should be safe.
>
> 2.6.26 is fixing one bug about reserving local apic address and that
> in e820 table.
> and it reveals one bios bug.
Correction -- it revealed at least two. See the link I posted earlier in
this thread:
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0808.2/1807.html
Scroll down to the line that starts with "[blog]" for the link. You can see
the discussion I had encouraging him to come here to help us troubleshoot
if you go to that blog and click "Comments".
I only mention this as a warning, in case it could lead to a lot of extra
problems for you later. If you're quite sure that everything is OK, then
all I can do is thank you again and keep my fingers crossed for you and the
kernel team that nothing bad happens when 2.6.2[67] hit the major distros.
Thanks Yinghai and Ingo (and Peter, Paul, Bill, Mike, Ilpo, Frans, Jesse...
and Andrew, for being the only one to tell me my ISP webmail client was
breaking threading in everyone's inbox!)
Now leaving LKML...
Dave Witbrodt
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:05 AM, David Witbrodt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > - Is there any chance I can get it into the stable 2.6.26.X updates?
>>> > (Who should I ask, or are only developers allowed to lobby for this
>>> > sort of thing?)
>>>
>>> after the patch get into linus tree. Greg will put the patch into 2.6.26.X
>>
>> OK, thanks a bunch.
>>
>>
>>> > - Are you worried about the potential problems of a quirk-based approach?
>>> > What if many more people experience a similar regression once 2.6.26 or
>>> > later appears in their distribution? I'm sure you don't want to have to
>>> > write a different quirk for each individual's hardware, and this problem
>>> > did not arise with the approach used for resource management in 2.6.25.
>>>
>>> this patch should be safe.
>>>
>>> 2.6.26 is fixing one bug about reserving local apic address and that
>>> in e820 table.
>>> and it reveals one bios bug.
>>
>> Correction -- it revealed at least two. See the link I posted earlier in
>> this thread:
>>
>> http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0808.2/1807.html
>>
>> Scroll down to the line that starts with "[blog]" for the link. You can see
>> the discussion I had encouraging him to come here to help us troubleshoot
>> if you go to that blog and click "Comments".
>>
>> I only mention this as a warning, in case it could lead to a lot of extra
>> problems for you later. If you're quite sure that everything is OK, then
>> all I can do is thank you again and keep my fingers crossed for you and the
>> kernel team that nothing bad happens when 2.6.2[67] hit the major distros.
>
> after discussing with Ingo, we have one more generic way to detect the
> same situation.
>
> please help to verify the attached patch. ( don't apply previous patch)
>
and please test attached patch too. ( could test it without two patches)
YH
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:05 AM, David Witbrodt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> > - Is there any chance I can get it into the stable 2.6.26.X updates?
>> > (Who should I ask, or are only developers allowed to lobby for this
>> > sort of thing?)
>>
>> after the patch get into linus tree. Greg will put the patch into 2.6.26.X
>
> OK, thanks a bunch.
>
>
>> > - Are you worried about the potential problems of a quirk-based approach?
>> > What if many more people experience a similar regression once 2.6.26 or
>> > later appears in their distribution? I'm sure you don't want to have to
>> > write a different quirk for each individual's hardware, and this problem
>> > did not arise with the approach used for resource management in 2.6.25.
>>
>> this patch should be safe.
>>
>> 2.6.26 is fixing one bug about reserving local apic address and that
>> in e820 table.
>> and it reveals one bios bug.
>
> Correction -- it revealed at least two. See the link I posted earlier in
> this thread:
>
> http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0808.2/1807.html
>
> Scroll down to the line that starts with "[blog]" for the link. You can see
> the discussion I had encouraging him to come here to help us troubleshoot
> if you go to that blog and click "Comments".
>
> I only mention this as a warning, in case it could lead to a lot of extra
> problems for you later. If you're quite sure that everything is OK, then
> all I can do is thank you again and keep my fingers crossed for you and the
> kernel team that nothing bad happens when 2.6.2[67] hit the major distros.
after discussing with Ingo, we have one more generic way to detect the
same situation.
please help to verify the attached patch. ( don't apply previous patch)
YH