Re: 68040 buserror patch
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:26:25PM -0500, Andrew McPherson wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2000, Michel Lanners wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 6 Oct, this message from Andrew McPherson echoed through cyberspace:
> > >> The patch applies with minimal intervention to 2.2.16 from mac68k CVS
> > >> and it seems to work (for me at least :). Would somebody with write
> > >> access to CVS please commit it?
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK, I applied the patch and it seems to work. ypbind runs now. :) I put up
> > > a kernel at ftp://macduff.dhs.org/pub/cvs/vmlinux-2.2.16-100500.gz. I'll
> > > commit the patch to CVS shortly.
> >
> > Though your kernel does run, it locks up on my Performa 475 after some
> > time (of inactivity?).
interesting.. I had once a problem with an Xserver that crashed always when
I was not watching it. Turned out to be the screen blanking mechanism ;)
Maybe your kernel tries to spin down something?
> Hmmm.... that's not good at all. Question: Does your Performa still have a
> 68LC040 processor, or does it have a full 68040? If it has an LC040, than
> we may have an interesting decision to make: If a patch fixes a nasty bug
> on machines that otherwise work, but severely breaks already broken
> machines, what do we do about it? The patch appears to be mostly assembly,
> and though I'm not proficient at 68k assembly, I'll look to see if it does
> anything that would break an LC040.
the buserror patch should not break anything itself, I am running variations
of it for more than 3 months. The assembly part of it is fairly minimal btw.
Possibly it is something with 2.2.16? I have tried 2.2.17 which exhibits
the classical 68040 fork problem, so I have not really tested anything newer
than 2.2.10 in the 2.2 branch.
Could you test the patch with your previous stable kernel? Or 2.2.16
without this patch?
Bye
Richard
Reply to: