Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13151-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:41:35 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Chris Rankin <rankincj@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does Linux still support UP?
Message-ID: <ZY7omD5OBLUg6pyx@duo.ucw.cz>
References: <CAK2bqVKCdaD6-PZi6gXhf=9CiKGhxQM_UHyKV_onzDPnhbAmvw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="70EgRxlTRoKgOZlJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK2bqVKCdaD6-PZi6gXhf=9CiKGhxQM_UHyKV_onzDPnhbAmvw@mail.gmail.com>


--70EgRxlTRoKgOZlJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi!

> I have an ancient i586 UP machine that happily runs vanilla Linux
> 6.4.16, but which locks up shortly after booting vanilla 6.5.0. The
> kernel *seems* to run into trouble as soon as the networking layer
> becomes busy. However, its SysRq-S/U/B sequence still seems to work as
> expected and so obviously *something* is still responding somewhere.
>=20
> This problem still exists in vanilla 6.6.8.
>=20
> FWIW I have raised this bug in bugzilla:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D218296

Yes, UP should still work. I'm using such machine and intend to
continue with that. But it seems more testing would be welcome.

And yes, you'll likely need to bisect.

Best regards,
								Pavel

--=20
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

--70EgRxlTRoKgOZlJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRPfPO7r0eAhk010v0w5/Bqldv68gUCZY7orwAKCRAw5/Bqldv6
8todAKCibSurY7CjS6hkVxuB6tEcdKxdLACeLH+oqOiHZHCnHVi5lzu8QjNJUkA=
=41qP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--70EgRxlTRoKgOZlJ--