From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:53:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:53:24 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:5112 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:53:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:53:23 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Athlon doesn't like Athlon optimisation? Message-ID: <20010831135323.A22974@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 01:37:16PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > So what happens when someone is able to duplicate the problem on say AMD > > > 760MP chipset with registered ECC PC2100 ram and 450W power supply? > > > Not to say it has happened yet (I havent got my dual Tyan Tiger MP yet :-) > > > but where would the finger start pointing then? > > That would make it a lot more complex. There were a few cases much earlier > > on with AMD chipset lockups but those have been cured (and were an Athlon > > processor errata where a prefetch of an uncacheable line made a very very > > nasty mess). > > Can you define a hardware configuration that if it fails under athlon > optimizations, you would consider a falsification of the "marginal > hardware" theory? > > I want a hardware config that will get everyones attention if it fails. > >>From other posts, that would be boards based on AMD chipsets, and possibly SIS or ALI.