> incidentally, I've been running 2.1.60 since:
> 10:01am up 6 days, 11:23h, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.19
> ^^^ ???
> Anyways - it's the longest uptime I've had in a while <g>
> (no I don't have quota - that's prolly why 0 users...)
>
> On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, James Lewis Nance wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> > I have found several problems with 2.1.60 and 2.1.61 which I think
> > I should report. I have not done much testing of the 2.1.5X kernels,
> > so I can not say for sure when these problems appeared.
> > The machine I am using is built around a Cyrix 6x86 P166 processor.
> > It has IDE disks. I can be more specific if anyone wants more details.
> > The machine runs well with all the 2.0.X kernels I have tried, and I
> > am currently running it with 2.0.31. Here are the problems I am
> > having with 2.1.6X kernels:
> >
> > 1) The command "/sbin/hdparm -u 1 -d 1 -c 1 /dev/hdc" fails to put the
> > drive into dma mode for 2.1.6X kernels, but it works find with 2.0.X
> > kernels.
>
> Suspect: Motherboard variety? Not sure.
>
> > 2) When I apply Mike Jagdis'es 2.1.39 Cyrix patch, the cpu type as
> > reported by uname is iE86 instead of i586.
>
> Patch: (the 2.1.39 cyrix patch causes this bug....)
> ==========================================================================
> --- linux/include/asm-i386/bugs.h~ Sun Oct 26 01:14:10 1997
> +++ linux/include/asm-i386/bugs.h Sun Oct 26 01:35:08 1997
> @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@
> check_tlb();
> check_fpu();
> check_hlt();
> - system_utsname.machine[1] = '0' + (x86 & 0x0f);
> check_amd_k6();
> - system_utsname.machine[1] = '0' + x86;
> + system_utsname.machine[1] = '0' + (x86 & 0x0f);
> }
> ==========================================================================
>
> > 3) If I don't apply the Cyrix patch mentioned above, the kernel fails
> > to boot. It complains that my processor does not honor the WP bit
> > and that I should recompile for a 386. I don't have any problems
> > booting 2.0.X kernels w/o the Cyrix patches, and /proc/cpuinfo shows
> > that the wp bit works.
>
> May I toss another vote in favour of this patch being adopted?
> <grin>
> Especially if there's computers that won't run without it....
> (I haven't tested since 2.1.39....)
>
> G'day, eh? :)
> - Teunis
>