On 2017-Mar-2, at 7:19 AM, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:10:21PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:45:07AM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >> >>> Summary of the transition interval: >>> >>> So for powerpc64 (and powerpc?) It is a good >>> idea to avoid anything that is after -r313254 >>> and before -r314474 in head. (Would this be >>> appropriate for a UPDATING notice given its >>> span?) >>> >>> There may be other architectures that might have >>> a similar status(?): the last fixes involved were >>> not in Machine Dependent code. (Some architectures >>> are apparently insensitive to the errors, such as >>> amd64). >>> >> >> When following current you are expected to be on the newest revision, >> so I don't think mentioning interim broken releases makes much sense. >> > > Documenting the range may aid those bisecting src/ to find a bug. > How is one to know that anything in the range that Mark points > out should be skipped on powerpc64? > > -- > Steve I have tested with a TARGET_ARCH=powerpc -r314473 build and its kernel version has locking problems like TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 does for that version. [Note: This was run on a PowerMac G5 so-called "Quad Core" so most of the memory was ignored.] Both TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 and TARGET_ARCH=powerpc need -r314474 or later as of the new locking. I've not explicitly tested other architectures. As I remember armv6/v7 are classified as having some from of a weak memory model compared to the likes of amd64. If so armv6/v7 might be candidates for having problems. There might be other candidates. === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.netReceived on Fri Mar 03 2017 - 08:38:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:10 UTC