On 4 March 2014 17:44, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 01:06:03PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:04:19PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> > forcepae is descriptive.
>>
>> Back to forcepae.
>
> Ok, it looks ok to me after a quick look. Now you only have
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 01:06:03PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:04:19PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > forcepae is descriptive.
>
> Back to forcepae.
Ok, it looks ok to me after a quick look. Now you only have to ask
Dave whether he's fine with you merging his pat
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:04:19PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> forcepae is descriptive.
Back to forcepae.
Signed-off-by: Chris Bainbridge
---
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 580a60c..67755ea 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parame
forcepae is descriptive.
On March 3, 2014 9:01:30 PM PST, Chris Bainbridge
wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:29:39PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:04:35PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> > On 3 March 2014 02:05, Roland Kletzing wrote:
>> > > i would recommend ad
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:29:39PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:04:35PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 3 March 2014 02:05, Roland Kletzing wrote:
> > > i would recommend adding the newly introduced param to
> > > Documentation/kernel-
> > > parameters.txt , tho
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:04:35PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 02:05, Roland Kletzing wrote:
> > i would recommend adding the newly introduced param to
> > Documentation/kernel-
> > parameters.txt , though.
>
> Done.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Bainbridge
> ---
> diff --git a/
> We routinely expect 2 to 3 u-s jitters on an Atom board running a 32 bit,
> RTAI enhanced build of what is by now a 5 year old kernel. This is
> extremely board sensitive, and that same kernel running on this 4 core
> phenom, cannot stay inside of 40 u-s. A case of more horsepower not being
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 09:56:19PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > /*
> > +* PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
> > +*/
>
> Ain't that a tad strongly/incorrectly worded?
I've updated the wording.
On 3 March 2014 02:05, Roland Kletzing wrote:
> i would recomm
On 02/26/2014 09:57 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 09:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:45:41AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Grub can be made to behave sanely by using "linux16" and
>>> "initrd16", but of course none of the distros do it that way.
>
On Sunday 02 March 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 09:56:19PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > (BTW, would it be possible to transform Linux's PAE support into
> > boot-config or even fully runtime-detectable boot switching to
> > (non-)PAE, similar to or exceeding what XP offers wit
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:04:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:02:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > It would be a considerable amount of work to make it a runtime thing.
> > Ten years ago, maybe it would be worth the effort perhaps, but I'd
> > suggest just letting 32
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:02:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> It would be a considerable amount of work to make it a runtime thing.
> Ten years ago, maybe it would be worth the effort perhaps, but I'd
> suggest just letting 32-bit slowly die instead of doing dramatic
> overhauls that will no doubt
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 09:56:19PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> (BTW, would it be possible to transform Linux's PAE support into
> boot-config or even fully runtime-detectable boot switching to
> (non-)PAE, similar to or exceeding what XP offers with its static
> boot-time flag?
> Last time I
On 03/02/2014 12:56 PM, Andreas Mohr wrote:
>
> (BTW, would it be possible to transform Linux's PAE support into
> boot-config or even fully runtime-detectable boot switching to
> (non-)PAE, similar to or exceeding what XP offers with its static
> boot-time flag?
> Last time I checked PAE support
Hi,
> /*
> + * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
> + */
Ain't that a tad strongly/incorrectly worded?
It's probably not certain whether that's a "bug".
Prior content in this discussion suggested that the flag might have been
intentionally not advertised, due to
great to see that we have an enhaced version of the initial quick`n`dirty patch
now. i just tested it on ubuntu 13.10 with kernel from 14.04 repository
(complete
package build).
works as expected ! hopefully ubuntu #930447 can now be closed soon and the
patch
will quickly find it´s way into tru
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:27:50PM +0300, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> Note that revisions of the Dothan core were released in the first quarter
> of 2005 with the *Sonoma* chipsets and supported a 533 MT/s FSB and NX-bit
> (and PAE support required for it was enabled, unlike earlier P
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:18:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > >
On 02/26/2014 09:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:45:41AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Yes. Grub can be made to behave sanely by using "linux16" and
>> "initrd16", but of course none of the distros do it that way.
>
> Fedora does as of F20, but yeah, point taken.
>
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:20:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Then it's definitely a good idea :-)
LOL!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:18:17PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I'd suggest repurposing 'S'. Instead of 'unsafe smp', it could mean
> > "out of Spec". We currently only use that flag on some ancient athlon
> > xp, so there's not
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> I'd suggest repurposing 'S'. Instead of 'unsafe smp', it could mean
> "out of Spec". We currently only use that flag on some ancient athlon
> xp, so there's not going to be any kind of collision.
Hahaa, I said that yesterday already:
h
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:45:41AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes. Grub can be made to behave sanely by using "linux16" and
> "initrd16", but of course none of the distros do it that way.
Fedora does as of F20, but yeah, point taken.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscri
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:18:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> >clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
> >
> >/*
> > + * PAE CP
On 02/26/2014 05:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
>>
>> /*
>> + * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M repo
On 02/26/2014 08:44 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>
>> The basic findings of the bug discussion is that people are successfully
>> running PAE kernels on Pentium M (for some unknown reason Grub skips the
>> validate_cpu code in the k
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> The basic findings of the bug discussion is that people are successfully
> running PAE kernels on Pentium M (for some unknown reason Grub skips the
> validate_cpu code in the kernel, so existing PAE kernels will run
> unmodified,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
>
> /*
> + * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
> + */
> + if (forc
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:16:02AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 08:26 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:45:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > > Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CP
On 02/25/2014 08:26 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:45:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
> > > This is an issue now that some distributions are no
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:45:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
> > This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
> > non-PAE kernels (those distr
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:45:57 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
> > This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
> > non-PAE kernels (those distribution
On 02/25/2014 05:45 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
non-PAE kernels (those distributions no longer boot on Pentiu
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:45:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> >Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
> >This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
> >non-PAE kernels (those distribution
On 02/24/2014 10:01 PM, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
non-PAE kernels (those distributions no longer boot on Pentium M). This
small patch fixes the issue by forci
Pentium M is PAE capable but does not indicate so in the CPUID response.
This is an issue now that some distributions are no longer shipping
non-PAE kernels (those distributions no longer boot on Pentium M). This
small patch fixes the issue by forcing the PAE capability on Pentium M.
For more disc
36 matches
Mail list logo
