From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:54:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from schenk.ISAR.de ([IPv6:::ffff:212.14.78.13]:55337 "EHLO schenk.isar.de") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:54:38 +0000 Received: from gwhaus.rt.schenk (gwhaus.rt.schenk [172.22.0.4]) by schenk.isar.de (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id j1AEsaH20913; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:54:36 +0100 Received: from [172.22.10.24] (pcimr4.rt.schenk [172.22.10.24]) by gwhaus.rt.schenk (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id j1AEsac32205; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:54:36 +0100 Message-ID: <420B75AC.4080209@schenk.isar.de> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:54:36 +0100 From: Rojhalat Ibrahim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040617 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: More than 512MB of memory References: <41ED20E3.60309@schenk.isar.de> <20050204004028.GC22311@linux-mips.org> <42072264.6000001@schenk.isar.de> <20050208001742.GA15336@linux-mips.org> <42088CFA.6090605@schenk.isar.de> <20050209000640.GA10651@linux-mips.org> <4209C492.4050201@schenk.isar.de> <20050210134043.GA30792@linux-mips.org> In-Reply-To: <20050210134043.GA30792@linux-mips.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 7224 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ibrahim@schenk.isar.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:06:42AM +0100, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > > >>Ok, thanks. If I can try anything that might help track down >>the problem, please let me know. > > > Try this patch which is meant to be used in combination with the previous > patch. It moves a test which determines if we actually need to perform a > cacheflush to the right place. That's a bug which is harmless on UP but > a severe bug on SMP. > I did a CVS update, which apparently includes this patch, and I get this: LD .tmp_vmlinux1 arch/mips/mm/built-in.o(.init.text+0x98): In function `fixrange_init': : undefined reference to `__pud_offset' make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1 What's __pud_offset? Thanks Rojhalat Ibrahim