login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...>
Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh <venkatesh.pallipadi@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Packard, Keith <keith.packard@...>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...>
Date: Monday, May 5, 2008 - 1:32 pm

Sigh. This is going to get complex...

On Monday 05 May 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:

I suspect it could be vesafb/fbcon related instead. Normally I boot my 
system with 'quiet vga=791', i.e. with vesafb. I then see the artifacts.

When I boot without 'vga=791', I hit another, unrelated regression (which 
I'll report separately) [1].

When I boot with 'video=vfb:off', I do _not_ get the artifacts when X exits.

Note that the "expected mapping type" errors remain the same both with and 
without framebuffer console.



OK. Thanks. Guess you've also seen "Xorg crash with xf86MapVidMem error" 
that turned out to be due to PAT: 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/915300 ?

Cheers,
FJP

[1] Short version of this unrelated issue.
If I boot without vga=791 the console stops being updated after PCI probes.
At first I thought this was #9310, but this time it's unrelated to the 
config option mentioned there. Symptoms are awfully similar though.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Fri May 2, 3:22 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 3:37 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 11:57 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Mon May 5, 1:32 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Venki Pallipadi, (Tue May 6, 6:42 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Sun May 25, 11:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Wed May 7, 3:02 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 6:36 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Wed May 7, 3:18 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 7:23 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Fri May 9, 6:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:05 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 1:45 am)
RE: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 9, 6:20 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Sat May 10, 2:19 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 2:29 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:09 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Fri May 9, 4:48 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 1:45 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 3:04 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Frans Pop, (Fri Jun 13, 12:42 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:59 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:00 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Ingo Molnar, (Sun May 4, 5:04 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 5:55 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 6:07 pm)
speck-geostationary