From owner-freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 15 17:13:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A644B16A418 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:13:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com (smtpoutm.mac.com [17.148.16.77]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A4613C43E for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:13:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (asmtp009-s [10.150.69.72]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout014/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m1FHDKZJ006930; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/asmtp009/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m1FHDHZ1003257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <93764CAD-7DB3-4AD5-9147-7F470CE730BA@mac.com> From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Christian Kandeler In-Reply-To: <200802150756.22455.christian.kandeler@hob.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:13:16 -0800 References: <6C851D25-4B3A-4563-8363-C1BD9A14C1AC@mac.com> <200802141452.24071.christian.kandeler@hob.de> <200802150756.22455.christian.kandeler@hob.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD on Montecito: solved... X-BeenThere: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the IA-64 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:13:20 -0000 On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:56 PM, Christian Kandeler wrote: > On Friday 15 February 2008 01:03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >>> Will you incorporate this patch into a snapshot or are you going >>> to wait with that until the cleaner solution is there? >> >> It's in -CURRENT and 7-STABLE and will also be in 7.0-RELEASE. > > Thanks. By the way: Do you see any obvious reason why the failure > would happen on Montecito systems, but not on earlier ones? It's not > as if those didn't have caches... True, but it appears that the implementations so far kept the caches coherent. It could very well be that the later addition of the fc.i instruction was triggered by Intel having a CPU that didn't keep the caches coherent... -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com