From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:30:47 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek Cc: Eli Chen , brian.kuschak@skystream.com, linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: dcache BUG() Message-ID: <20010507143047.B1118@opus.bloom.county> References: <027b01c0d728$9a702b80$4b00000a@foolio1> <3AF710DC.37209810@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3AF710DC.37209810@mvista.com>; from dan@mvista.com on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:17:16PM -0400 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:17:16PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > ... This is really just a work around for us until we find out what > > is the real problem. > > Is there some simple test I can use to trigger this problem? It > would be nice if you could try a "newer" kernel from FSM Labs. This > was originally in the linuxppc_2_5 tree, and we are merging/changing > trees at the moment. I don't remember the URL......TOM, can you > provide some insight? Er, 2_5 isn't unavailable yet. bk://source.mvista.com/linuxppc_2_5 (mirror) or bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5005 (master). But 2_5 is 'dead' in the sense that stuff is being moved to a new tree. The new tree should be a lot more populated (with new 6xx/7xx/74xx, 8xx, 82xx and some 4xx) stuff after my finals (And I've got 2 tomorrow, so adios. :)) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/