From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA17809 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:22:49 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA91191 for linux-list; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:48:28 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA48037 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:48:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de) Received: from lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de (ip39.cb.resolution.de [195.30.142.39]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id SAA02728 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:48:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de) Received: (from ralf@localhost) by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA01442; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:48:22 +0100 Message-ID: <19990205034821.A620@uni-koblenz.de> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:48:21 +0100 From: ralf@uni-koblenz.de To: Alexander Graefe , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: What kernel to use to install RH on a R4400 ? References: <19990202155147.A1565@ganymede> <19990203043951.D3920@uni-koblenz.de> <19990204154637.B5941@ganymede> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <19990204154637.B5941@ganymede>; from Alexander Graefe on Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 03:46:37PM +0100 Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 03:46:37PM +0100, Alexander Graefe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 04:39:51AM +0100, ralf@uni-koblenz.de wrote: > > > - the exact screen output. Especially the register dump following the > > Aiee message is important. > > kernel 2.1.100 (the one from the HardHat.tgz) 2.1.100 is known to fail on R4400. This is supposed to be fixed in .131 which is why I'm worried about the other bug report. Your case is obvious - use a newer kernel. Ralf