Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13154-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK2bqVKCdaD6-PZi6gXhf=9CiKGhxQM_UHyKV_onzDPnhbAmvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZY7omD5OBLUg6pyx@duo.ucw.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ZY7omD5OBLUg6pyx@duo.ucw.cz>
From: Chris Rankin <rankincj@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:03:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK2bqVLBZvU2fVfY4bkFrU=4X+W4O3f5pbTdeQjMW=W2sGWpeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does Linux still support UP?
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

I have already attached as much information as I am *ever* likely to
be able to extract about this problem to the Bugzilla ticket.

Cheers,
Chris

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 15:41, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> > This problem still exists in vanilla 6.6.8.
> >
> > FWIW I have raised this bug in bugzilla:
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218296
>
> 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
>
> --
> People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.