From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.linux.org.uk (parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk [195.92.249.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EFE2BDD7 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:53:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:49:46 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Dan Malek Message-ID: <20041015154946.GB3957@logos.cnet> References: <28F2CE72-0BF0-11D9-97DC-003065F9B7DC@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <28F2CE72-0BF0-11D9-97DC-003065F9B7DC@embeddededge.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, 'Song Sam' Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.x on 8xx status List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:03:29PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Smith, Craig wrote: > > >Genius. That patch appears to work for me as well. > > The fact this works indicates a subtle memory management > problem elsewhere. I don't know what that is at this > point. This hack is in a piece of generic code that works > properly on all other PowerPC cores, so it isn't going to > ever appear in the public sources. > > I suggested this change to a few people hoping the information > would lead them to finding the real problem, not that it > should be perpetuated as a "fix" to make 8xx work. > I don't personally have time to work on this right now, > so anyone using 8xx should be looking for the real > cause and solution, not using this to create products. Do you know the real cause Dan ? As I told you, we are porting our sub-sub-architecture to v2.6, and need that bug fixed at some time. Lots of other people do.