From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:18:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:18:08 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:52496 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:18:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Any lingering Athlon bugs in Kernel 2.4.14? From: Robert Love To: "Calin A. Culianu" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.99.1+cvs.2001.11.07.16.47 (Preview Release) Date: 08 Nov 2001 14:18:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1005247097.866.41.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2001-11-08 at 13:17, Calin A. Culianu wrote: > I wouldn't mind trying his tree at all. Does his tree somehow use the > older VM, or does it try to address Athlon bugs more aggressively? Ie: Why > is this a great idea? (Apart from Alan's tree just being really cool). It does use the older VM, and more importantly it has some odd end fixes that have yet to be incorporated into Linus's tree. And, yes, it is just really cool :) After that, I would look into compiling without optimization. Also, what exactly happens on the systems? Do they hard lock? Do you have an oops? Robert Love