[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 68040 buserror patch

Richard Zidlicky 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?

If the 2.2.16 discussed here is from the Mac CVS 2.2.16 I don't think it
has a problem with 68040 based systems.  I have been running it on my
Quadra 950 since early August with absolutely no problems.

Ray Knight

Reply to: