Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754457AbXLKRBc (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:01:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754887AbXLKRBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:01:18 -0500 Received: from mho-02-bos.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.179]:51871 "EHLO mho-02-bos.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754148AbXLKRBR (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 18.85.9.165 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/W9/XJD1PN78RY0io+f7Cj Message-ID: <475EC246.10205@reed.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:54 -0500 From: "David P. Reed" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070727 Fedora/2.0.0.5-2.fc7 Thunderbird/2.0.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rene Herman CC: Andi Kleen , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , David Newall , Paul Rolland , "H. Peter Anvin" , Krzysztof Halasa , Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , rol@witbe.net Subject: Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64 with MCP51 laptops References: <475DE37F.20706@davidnewall.com> <475DE6F4.80702@zytor.com> <475DEB23.1000304@davidnewall.com> <20071211084059.3d03e11d@tux.DEF.witbe.net> <475E5D4B.8020101@keyaccess.nl> <475E7DC2.4060509@davidnewall.com> <475E8D91.20201@keyaccess.nl> <475E95A3.3070801@davidnewall.com> <20071211163017.GD16750@one.firstfloor.org> <475EBFBA.6090301@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <475EBFBA.6090301@keyaccess.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1093 Lines: 30 Which port do you want me to test? Also, I can run the timing test on my machine if you share the source code so I can build it. Rene Herman wrote: > On 11-12-07 17:30, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> Anyways it looks like the discussion here is going in a >> a loop. I had hoped David would post his test results with >> another port so that we know for sure that the bus aborts (and not >> port 80) is the problem on his box. But it looks like >> he doesn't want to do this. Still removing the bus aborts >> is probably the correct way to go forward. > > Yes, I do also still want to know that. David (Reed)? > >> Only needs a patch now. If nobody beats me to it i'll >> add one later to my tree. > > Pavel Machek already posted one. His udelay(8) wants to be less -- 1 > or "to be safe" perhaps 2. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/9/131 > > Rene. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/