Re: 68040 buserror patch
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:26:25PM -0500, Andrew McPherson wrote:
> > 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?
I will try both, real soon now. I have a copy of 2.2.14 that I saved from
before, and I can back the patch out of 2.2.16. I'll post a link when I
get a couple test kernels made.