From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755430AbcB2MpH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:45:07 -0500
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:33063 "EHLO
	out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754935AbcB2MnL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:43:11 -0500
X-Sasl-enc: b149g6sZxdLkLZpLBx1MvjIhlb2KlhY6XjTfuIIMAafX 1456749789
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:43:06 -0300
From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: Robert =?utf-8?B?xZp3acSZY2tp?= <robert@swiecki.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, lwn@lwn.net,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request from pty_write [was:
 Linux 4.4.2]
Message-ID: <20160229124306.GA22425@khazad-dum.debian.net>
References: <CA+55aFxXAiJe=NPuxJ3vQFn6T12_nVV2+Yz4yChYbavtB+1caw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFzSeY35WB7GNPf6POW1vSqCVBdMQiJgy4OcgPXSdsmYrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP145phdemqK0hCSw9m5E2TZbrBojnzqAVZ97O5APtLA6Abr7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56D3F5A4.6050000@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <56D3F5A4.6050000@suse.cz>
X-GPG-Fingerprint1: 4096R/39CB4807 C467 A717 507B BAFE D3C1  6092 0BD9 E811
 39CB 4807
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/26/2016, 08:59 PM, Robert Święcki wrote:
> > It happens only with 0x6000832 ucode, and Piledriver-based CPUs: i.e.
> > newer AMD FX, and Opteron 300 series (4300, 6300 etc.).
> 
> Ok, I can confirm this is:
> AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6348
> 
> And:
> microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x06000836
> 
> Thank all the interested parties!

Jiri, does microcode 0x6000836 *fix* the erratum in microcode 0x6000832?

Or did you mean both 0x6000832 and 0x6000836 have the same erratum discussed
in this thread?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh