Alan Cox wrote:Alan - in googling around the net yesterday looking for SuperIO chipsets that claim to support port 80, I have found that "blade" servers from companies like IBM and HP *claim* to have a system for monitoring port 80 diagnostic codes and sending them to the "drawer" management processor through a management backplane. This is a little puzzling, because you'd think they would have noticed port 80 issues, since they run Linux in their systems. Maybe not hangs, but it seems unhelpful to have a lot of noise spewing over a bus that is supposed to provide "management" diagnostics. Anyway, what I did not find was whether there was a particular chipset that provided that port 80 feature on those machines. However, if it's a common "cell" in a design, it may have leaked into the notebook market chipsets too. Anyone know if the Linux kernels used on blade servers have been patched to not do the port 80 things? I don't think this would break anything there, but it might have been a helpful patch for their purposes. I don't do blades personally or at work (I focus on mobile devices these days, and my personal servers are discrete), so I have no knowledge. It could be that the blade servers have BIOSes that don't do POST codes over port 80, but send them directly to the "drawer" management bus, of course. --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Vu Pham | Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Radu Rendec | Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | [PATCH 0/11] ibm_newemac: Candidate patches for 2.6.25 |
