* Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
@ 2004-02-19 18:34 Tony Lindgren
2004-02-20 16:13 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2004-02-19 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ak; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi Andi,
I guess you probably already know about this, but the recent changeset
1.1561.1.1 breaks compiling and booting for amd64.
First, this breaks for the compile:
arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c: In function detect_ht':
arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c:599: error: smp_num_siblings' undeclared (first
use in this function)
arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c:599: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reported only once
arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c:599: error: for each function it appears in.)
make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel] Error 2
After #if 0 out some parts to make it compile, it fails to boot with no
output at all. Sorry, don't have low level debugging or serial console on
this machine configured, let me know if you need further information.
Undoing this cset makes things work as before.
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-19 18:34 Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
@ 2004-02-20 16:13 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 19:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-02-19 20:39 ` Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Lindgren; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:34:49 -0800
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> I guess you probably already know about this, but the recent changeset
> 1.1561.1.1 breaks compiling and booting for amd64.
You need the appended patch to build on Uni Processor again. I already
submitted it to Linus, but he doesn't seem to have merged it yet
(or alternatively compile for SMP)
> After #if 0 out some parts to make it compile, it fails to boot with no
> output at all. Sorry, don't have low level debugging or serial console on
> this machine configured, let me know if you need further information.
It works for me with this patch both UP and SMP. Maybe you commented out
too much?
-Andi
diff -u linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c-o linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
--- linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c-o 2004-02-19 09:01:09.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2004-02-19 09:09:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -588,6 +588,7 @@
static void __init detect_ht(void)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
extern int phys_proc_id[NR_CPUS];
u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
@@ -631,6 +632,7 @@
printk(KERN_INFO "CPU: Physical Processor ID: %d\n",
phys_proc_id[cpu]);
}
+#endif
}
#define LVL_1_INST 1
diff -u linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile-o linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile
--- linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile-o 2004-02-19 09:01:09.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile 2004-02-19 09:15:41.000000000 +0100
@@ -33,4 +33,4 @@
cpuid-$(subst m,y,$(CONFIG_X86_CPUID)) += ../../i386/kernel/cpuid.o
topology-y += ../../i386/mach-default/topology.o
swiotlb-$(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) += ../../ia64/lib/swiotlb.o
-microcode-$(CONFIG_MICROCODE) += ../../i386/kernel/microcode.o
+microcode-$(subst m,y,$(CONFIG_X86_CPUID)) += ../../i386/kernel/microcode.o
diff -u linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c
--- linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o 2004-02-19 09:01:09.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 09:08:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -194,7 +194,9 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_sibling_map);
+#endif
extern void do_softirq_thunk(void);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_NOVERS(do_softirq_thunk);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-20 16:13 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2004-02-19 19:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-02-20 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 20:39 ` Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2004-02-19 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Tony Lindgren, linux-kernel
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:13:37PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o 2004-02-19 09:01:09.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 09:08:04.000000000 +0100
> @@ -194,7 +194,9 @@
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
^ Isn't this a typo?
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_sibling_map);
> +#endif
>
> extern void do_softirq_thunk(void);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NOVERS(do_softirq_thunk);
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-19 19:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2004-02-20 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 21:20 ` Philippe Elie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: tony, linux-kernel
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:36:10 -0500
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:13:37PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o 2004-02-19 09:01:09.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.3/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 09:08:04.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -194,7 +194,9 @@
> >
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
>
> ^ Isn't this a typo?
Indeed. Thanks for catching it.
It probably doesn't hurt because I don't know of any module that uses cpu_sibling_map[].
I think I just copied the export from i386. Maybe it would be best to just remove it completely.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-20 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2004-02-19 21:20 ` Philippe Elie
2004-02-20 19:32 ` [PATCH] Fix typo in x86-64 fix Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Elie @ 2004-02-19 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, tony, linux-kernel
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 at 17:44 +0000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
> >
> > ^ Isn't this a typo?
>
> Indeed. Thanks for catching it.
>
> It probably doesn't hurt because I don't know of any module that uses cpu_sibling_map[].
> I think I just copied the export from i386. Maybe it would be best to just remove it completely.
Andrew added it a few hours ago, oprofile use it.
regards,
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Fix typo in x86-64 fix
2004-02-19 21:20 ` Philippe Elie
@ 2004-02-20 19:32 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Elie; +Cc: jakub, linux-kernel, akpm
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:20:02 +0000
Philippe Elie <phil.el@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 at 17:44 +0000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
> > >
> > > ^ Isn't this a typo?
> >
> > Indeed. Thanks for catching it.
> >
> > It probably doesn't hurt because I don't know of any module that uses cpu_sibling_map[].
> > I think I just copied the export from i386. Maybe it would be best to just remove it completely.
>
> Andrew added it a few hours ago, oprofile use it.
Ok, Andrew, can you please apply this incremental patch to fix the typo too ?
diff -u linux-2.6.3-amd64/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o linux-2.6.3-amd64/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c
--- linux-2.6.3-amd64/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c-o 2004-02-20 15:53:53.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.3-amd64/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-20 20:25:03.000000000 +0100
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_sibling_map);
#endif
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-20 16:13 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 19:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2004-02-19 20:39 ` Tony Lindgren
2004-02-20 19:02 ` Andi Kleen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2004-02-19 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: linux-kernel
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> [040219 11:24]:
>
> You need the appended patch to build on Uni Processor again. I already
> submitted it to Linus, but he doesn't seem to have merged it yet
> (or alternatively compile for SMP)
OK, that compiles, but does not boot. Tt's not the *.S files, not the
*.c, files, I think it's in the .h files somewhere.
Undoing *.S files did not help. Undoing *.c files did not help.
Finally undoing the *.h files booted... I'll try to narrow it down more.
Yeah, this is UP machine. Also just remembered I don't have a serial port
for lowe level printk's :)
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-19 20:39 ` Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
@ 2004-02-20 19:02 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Lindgren; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:39:20 -0800
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> [040219 11:24]:
> >
> > You need the appended patch to build on Uni Processor again. I already
> > submitted it to Linus, but he doesn't seem to have merged it yet
> > (or alternatively compile for SMP)
>
> OK, that compiles, but does not boot. Tt's not the *.S files, not the
> *.c, files, I think it's in the .h files somewhere.
Not sure what you mean with that.
Can you please fetch a completely fresh tree, apply the patch and try again?
Most likely you have a broken build of some sort.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* RE: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
@ 2004-02-19 20:45 Siddha, Suresh B
2004-02-20 19:29 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Siddha, Suresh B @ 2004-02-19 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen, Tony Lindgren; +Cc: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2694 bytes --]
> > After #if 0 out some parts to make it compile, it fails to
> boot with no
> > output at all. Sorry, don't have low level debugging or
> serial console on
> > this machine configured, let me know if you need further
> information.
>
> It works for me with this patch both UP and SMP. Maybe you
> commented out
> too much?
>
> -Andi
Andi, Appended patch should fix the problem reported by Tony.
thanks,
suresh
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S 2004-02-19 04:21:51.000000000 -0800
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@
/* asm/segment.h:GDT_ENTRIES must match this */
/* This should be a multiple of the cache line size */
/* GDTs of other CPUs: */
- .fill (L1_CACHE_BYTES * NR_CPUS) - (gdt_end - cpu_gdt_table)
+ .fill (GDT_SIZE * NR_CPUS) - (gdt_end - cpu_gdt_table)
.align L1_CACHE_BYTES
ENTRY(idt_table)
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2004-02-19 03:18:58.000000000 -0800
@@ -586,6 +586,7 @@
return r;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
static void __init detect_ht(void)
{
extern int phys_proc_id[NR_CPUS];
@@ -632,6 +633,7 @@
phys_proc_id[cpu]);
}
}
+#endif
#define LVL_1_INST 1
#define LVL_1_DATA 2
@@ -761,8 +763,10 @@
c->x86_cache_size = l2 ? l2 : (l1i+l1d);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_HT))
detect_ht();
+#endif
n = cpuid_eax(0x80000000);
if (n >= 0x80000008) {
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 03:20:04.000000000 -0800
@@ -194,7 +194,10 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_num_siblings);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_sibling_map);
+#endif
extern void do_softirq_thunk(void);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_NOVERS(do_softirq_thunk);
diff -Nru linux/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h linux~/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h
--- linux/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h 2004-02-19 03:11:05.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h 2004-02-19 04:21:17.000000000 -0800
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
#define FS_TLS_SEL ((GDT_ENTRY_TLS_MIN+FS_TLS)*8 + 3)
#define IDT_ENTRIES 256
-#define GDT_ENTRIES (L1_CACHE_BYTES / 8)
+#define GDT_ENTRIES 16
#define GDT_SIZE (GDT_ENTRIES * 8)
#define TLS_SIZE (GDT_ENTRY_TLS_ENTRIES * 8)
[-- Attachment #2: gdt+ht-fix.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2184 bytes --]
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/head.S 2004-02-19 04:21:51.000000000 -0800
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@
/* asm/segment.h:GDT_ENTRIES must match this */
/* This should be a multiple of the cache line size */
/* GDTs of other CPUs: */
- .fill (L1_CACHE_BYTES * NR_CPUS) - (gdt_end - cpu_gdt_table)
+ .fill (GDT_SIZE * NR_CPUS) - (gdt_end - cpu_gdt_table)
.align L1_CACHE_BYTES
ENTRY(idt_table)
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2004-02-19 03:18:58.000000000 -0800
@@ -586,6 +586,7 @@
return r;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
static void __init detect_ht(void)
{
extern int phys_proc_id[NR_CPUS];
@@ -632,6 +633,7 @@
phys_proc_id[cpu]);
}
}
+#endif
#define LVL_1_INST 1
#define LVL_1_DATA 2
@@ -761,8 +763,10 @@
c->x86_cache_size = l2 ? l2 : (l1i+l1d);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_HT))
detect_ht();
+#endif
n = cpuid_eax(0x80000000);
if (n >= 0x80000008) {
diff -Nru linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c
--- linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 03:10:55.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c 2004-02-19 03:20:04.000000000 -0800
@@ -194,7 +194,10 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(die_chain);
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_num_siblings);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_sibling_map);
+#endif
extern void do_softirq_thunk(void);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_NOVERS(do_softirq_thunk);
diff -Nru linux/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h linux~/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h
--- linux/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h 2004-02-19 03:11:05.000000000 -0800
+++ linux~/include/asm-x86_64/segment.h 2004-02-19 04:21:17.000000000 -0800
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
#define FS_TLS_SEL ((GDT_ENTRY_TLS_MIN+FS_TLS)*8 + 3)
#define IDT_ENTRIES 256
-#define GDT_ENTRIES (L1_CACHE_BYTES / 8)
+#define GDT_ENTRIES 16
#define GDT_SIZE (GDT_ENTRIES * 8)
#define TLS_SIZE (GDT_ENTRY_TLS_ENTRIES * 8)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-19 20:45 Siddha, Suresh B
@ 2004-02-20 19:29 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 21:14 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Siddha, Suresh B; +Cc: tony, linux-kernel
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:45:19 -0800
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> > > After #if 0 out some parts to make it compile, it fails to
> > boot with no
> > > output at all. Sorry, don't have low level debugging or
> > serial console on
> > > this machine configured, let me know if you need further
> > information.
> >
> > It works for me with this patch both UP and SMP. Maybe you
> > commented out
> > too much?
> >
> > -Andi
>
> Andi, Appended patch should fix the problem reported by Tony.
Which change exactly is supposed to fix it? And why?
For me the UP kernel boots just fine.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-20 19:29 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2004-02-19 21:14 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2004-02-19 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Siddha, Suresh B, linux-kernel
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> [040219 13:02]:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:45:19 -0800
> "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Andi, Appended patch should fix the problem reported by Tony.
>
> Which change exactly is supposed to fix it? And why?
>
> For me the UP kernel boots just fine.
Thanks Suresh, that did it. I bet it's the GDT_ENTRIES change in segment.h
that was the real cause of my system not booting.
That's what I meant with having all parts of the original cset undone,
except for the *.h file changes. Even with only the *.h parts of the cset
included in my tree would cause the system _not_ boot.
Let me know if you need more patches tested, gotta do some work now that the
system runs again :)
Anybody got any information why the ioapic interrupt programming fails on VIA
based K8 boards, BTW?
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* RE: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
@ 2004-02-19 21:14 Siddha, Suresh B
2004-02-20 20:12 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Siddha, Suresh B @ 2004-02-19 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: tony, linux-kernel
>
> Which change exactly is supposed to fix it? And why?
>
> For me the UP kernel boots just fine.
>
> -Andi
GDT changes that I sent, fixes the boot problem. Its broken with CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES=64.
thanks,
suresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64
2004-02-19 21:14 Siddha, Suresh B
@ 2004-02-20 20:12 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-02-20 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Siddha, Suresh B; +Cc: tony, linux-kernel
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:14:27 -0800
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Which change exactly is supposed to fix it? And why?
> >
> > For me the UP kernel boots just fine.
> >
> > -Andi
>
> GDT changes that I sent, fixes the boot problem. Its broken with CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES=64.
Ah, ok, that explains it. I only tested with the GENERIC kernel which had a 128 byte cache line.
I think I will just always pad to 128 bytes instead of applying the patch though.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-19 21:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-19 18:34 Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
2004-02-20 16:13 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 19:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-02-20 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 21:20 ` Philippe Elie
2004-02-20 19:32 ` [PATCH] Fix typo in x86-64 fix Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 20:39 ` Intel x86-64 support patch breaks amd64 Tony Lindgren
2004-02-20 19:02 ` Andi Kleen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-19 20:45 Siddha, Suresh B
2004-02-20 19:29 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-19 21:14 ` Tony Lindgren
2004-02-19 21:14 Siddha, Suresh B
2004-02-20 20:12 ` Andi Kleen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox