>> update: I'm no longer sure that it's a kernel problem in my case.
>> after reducing the CPU clock from 450 to 400 MHz I've now compiled
>> >2*100 kernels using 2.2.10 with no single problem at all.
> Hmm.. Interesting.
>> so maybe it was just a hardware problem for me -- or it's some
>> weird race which doesn't show up for 400 but only for 450 MHz ?!
>> I can't believe that yet...
> Could be. It sounds fairly unlikely, but timing-related bugs are
> always the worst to find. I wonder what it was that pushed the
> system over the edge in the later 2.2.x (we had a _lot_ of this
> in the 2.0.x timeframe: people who had run 1.2.x with no
> problems and suddenly got problems due to 2.0 being better at
> utilizing the hardware).
> But yes, for the time being I will just assume it is
> hardware-related, and just wait for the reports to continue.
Is it just me, or does this sound suspiciously like...
1. Windows 95 being unstable on an AMD K6-2/350 and unusable on
K6-2/366 and above due to a Win95 timer divider being zero due
to the processor's speed.
2. An overclocked processor due to some Taiwanese 'entrepreneur'
rebadging chips with higher speed ratings so they can charge
higher prices for them.
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/