Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:37:04 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- found another user with the same regression |
| |
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM, David Witbrodt <dawitbro@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> after discussing with Ingo, we have one more generic way to detect the >> same situation. >> >> please help to verify the attached patch. ( don't apply previous patch) > > Geez, a guy tries to leave so he doesn't get banned because of his stupid > webmail client, and... oh, never mind... ;) > > > Results: > > 1) patch applied perfectly to tip/master. > > 2) patched file compiles without warning or error. > (I thought there would be a type mismatch -- the "base" variable in your > patch is unsigned long, while "res->start" is resource_size_t ==> > u64 ==> unsigned long long, but I must have been mistaken.) > > 3) kernel builds fine > > 4) reboot hangs at the familiar call of inet_init()
ok, could be something.
anyway, can you test patch
only_put_e820_ram_in_res_tree.patch
that should be final solution for all.
YH
| |