On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 22:25 -0700, Christian Kujau wrote:
> I sure hope that other people will benefit from this as well. I can't
> stand the thought that you guys are always putting out fixes for this
> ol'
> PowerBook of mine :-\
Well, for some strange reason I didn't observe the problem on a
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 at 11:08, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Try this:
>
> powerpc: Don't use __put_user() in patch_instruction
Perfect! With this patch applied, the machine boots again.
Tested-by: Christian Kujau
I sure hope that other people will benefit from this as well. I can't
stand t
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 02:32 -0700, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 at 16:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user()
> > check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some
> > code unpatched, which then fails.
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 10:27 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> As a test case, continuing on error is fine, but I would not recommend
> that as a fix. If it fails, but still does the patch, that could be
> harmful, and confusing of a result.
>
> Need to figure out why put_user is failing.
It's proba
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 16:51 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user()
> check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some
> code unpatched, which then fails.
>
> Can you try with the patch applied, but instead of
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 16:51 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user()
> check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some
> code unpatched, which then fails.
>
> Can you try with the patch applied, but instead of re
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 at 16:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user()
> check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some
> code unpatched, which then fails.
>
> Can you try with the patch applied, but instead of returning
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 23:18 -0700, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 at 22:46, Christian Kujau wrote:
> > when trying to upgrade from 3.5 (final) to today's git checkout from
> > Linus' tree, yaboot cannot boot and the following is printed:
> >
> > [...]
> > returning from prom_ini
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 at 22:46, Christian Kujau wrote:
> when trying to upgrade from 3.5 (final) to today's git checkout from
> Linus' tree, yaboot cannot boot and the following is printed:
>
> [...]
> returning from prom_init
> Invalid memory access at %SRR0: 00c62fd4 %SRR1: 3030
Final
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 at 12:02, Tony Breeds wrote:
> 1) can you also upload you vmlinux so we can poke at it.
I've uploaded the vmlinx (and System.map) to the same location:
http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.5.0/yaboot/
> 2) What is the dmseg.txt file there? If you're unable to boot 3.5 how
> did yo
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:46:39PM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when trying to upgrade from 3.5 (final) to today's git checkout from
> Linus' tree, yaboot cannot boot and the following is printed:
>
> [...]
> returning from prom_init
> Invalid memory access at %SRR0: 00c62fd4 %
11 matches
Mail list logo
