On 12/16/2011 11:22 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:26:50 +0100, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:14:46AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:14:15 -0500, Alex Villacís Lasso a_villacis@palosanto.com wrote:
By using a bootable USB stick, I could check the logs, which showed many segfaults at /lib64/ld-2.14.90.so .
Ouch!
Please let me know if you find anything further; I'd like to get a revert sent upstream in the next day or so.
I think the revert is trtd. But if you revert it, please also revert/disable the ilk vt-d workaound or apply one of Ben's patches, because that one _does_ blow up, too.
Only if VT-d is enabled though, and that patch is now old enough that reverting it may cause additional problems.
Ben's patches still appear to have problems -- they don't appear to resolve the infinite recursion issue for unknown reasons.
I'm going to revert the patch which causes the reported regression, then wait for Eric to finish up his request queue cleanups and revisit this problem after that.
If this is referring to Dave Airlie's comment that it blows up, I think he took that back as a bad backport on his part (maybe he can confirm).
Aside from that, I never saw anyone report my patch as bad... or good.
Ben