[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] AW: RE: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI problem, was Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel?
So let's wait what they tell me. Issue has been passed to their BIOS group. BR, Carsten. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. September 2010 10:15 An: Carsten Schiers Cc: jeremy; gang.wei; winston.l.wang; yunhong.jiang; xen-devel Betreff: AW: RE: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI problem, was Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel? >>> On 15.09.10 at 09:22, "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As I am not such an expert (although through this experience, I now know > much more about ACPI), > can we now assume that the BIOS is ok? It's because I mailed the Asrock > guys already and either > need to give them the latest info, or I would explain them everything is > settled. Based on even the native kernel complaining (just not dying) the BIOS certainly isn't fully correct. This particularly includes (but isn't necessarily limited to) Name (CSDT, Package (0x18) { "CPU0CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU1CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU2CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU3CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU4CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU5CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU6CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000, "CPU7CST ", 0x80000000, 0x80000000 }) listing invalid addressed for *all* CPUs (not just the ones actually not present). Another point is that currently you may be luck in that they may not get evaluated. If they can guarantee that this will never get accessed, imo they should just leave it (and the dead access) out. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |