RH80 kernels based on the last RH9 update (with NPTL disabled as in previous RH80 updates), and with this patch added can be found at: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i386/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i386/kernel-doc-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i386/kernel-source-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i386/kernel-BOOT-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/athlon/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.athlon.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/athlon/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.athlon.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i586/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i586.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i586/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i586.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i686/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i686/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/RPMS/i686/kernel-bigmem-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jp107/rh80-updates/SRPMS/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.src.rpm Since people might want the sha1sums (I see they seem to be used here): 3a79a1cbcc79998b98c22526d6e09f501f8c0f4a RPMS/i386/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm 33d5aea841d1ca542ffd3760fe6b64d440b63172 RPMS/i386/kernel-doc-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm a222398e39c897811f3c8dac86eaa610a7ceb67a RPMS/i386/kernel-source-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm 775f9a4ad1a141d630e103ccfb72861b43b3defb RPMS/i386/kernel-BOOT-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i386.rpm fad7c109aa22dafc04046c05854fa80ae9016ef8 RPMS/athlon/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.athlon.rpm 018626e369f22e34989afc7d8fe6713ba4c4a7fc RPMS/athlon/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.athlon.rpm bbbbd1af7a77477ab4f0cd29708752283587add6 RPMS/i586/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i586.rpm 6ef48ed2dfe0faccfd386c19f8af1a836b06cd25 RPMS/i586/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i586.rpm 1fef3b9107632451176766932b0f84ecaf18ce36 RPMS/i686/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm ff94e743d3021c0a658c4d595ba48f7891a71b3d RPMS/i686/kernel-smp-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm 8a4d554d41cfb06646ff45875cdb2bbc6dbc7d1c RPMS/i686/kernel-bigmem-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.i686.rpm d01c17d65f36ad277e7f136f81e9723a16762e8f SRPMS/kernel-2.4.20-32.8.JSP.src.rpm Now for the bit people might not like, the FP exception isn't the only patch in there since I was already about to roll out a new kernel anyway with the following trond NFS server patch (for talking to OSX 10.3 and FreeBSD clients): http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/Linux-2.4.x/2.4.23-rc1/linux-2.4.23-03-fix_osx.dif New changelog bits are: * Tue Jun 15 2004 Jon Peatfield <J.S.Peatfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - fix fpu state to prevent kernel crash, see the redhat bugzilla entry: - http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125900 - which has a proposed patch for RHEL/FC1 - http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=101125&action=view * Sat Jun 12 2004 Jon Peatfield <J.S.Peatfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - nfs patch from Trond to allow us to serve clients which use - cookies != 8 bytes, OSX 10.3 uses 30 FreeBSD uses 20... - See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125996 - http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/Linux-2.4.x/2.4.23-rc1/linux-2.4.23-03-fix_osx.dif The specfile diff from my previous RH80 kernels is: --cut-here-- --- kernel-2.4.spec.old-31.8.JSP 2004-04-22 19:46:01.000000000 +0100 +++ kernel-2.4.spec 2004-06-15 08:39:29.000000000 +0100 @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ # that the kernel isn't the stock RHL kernel, for example by # adding some text to the end of the version number. # -%define release 31.8.JSP +%define release 32.8.JSP %define sublevel 20 %define kversion 2.4.%{sublevel} # /usr/src/%{kslnk} -> /usr/src/linux-%{KVERREL} @@ -288,6 +288,7 @@ Patch940: linux-2.4.22-kmod.patch Patch950: linux-2.4.25pre-selected-bits.patch Patch960: linux-2.4.26pre-selected-bits.patch +Patch961: linux-2.4.x.fpu.patch # # Patches 1000 to 5000 are reserved for bugfixes to drivers and filesystems @@ -333,6 +334,7 @@ Patch1380: linux-2.4.9-fstat.patch Patch1390: linux-2.4.18-irixnfs.patch Patch1391: linux-2.4.18-nfs-default-size.patch +Patch1392: linux-2.4.23-03-fix_osx.dif Patch1410: linux-2.4.20-sbp2-smpfixes.patch Patch1420: linux-2.4.7-suspend.patch Patch1450: linux-2.4.18-orinoco.patch @@ -742,6 +744,9 @@ %patch950 -p1 %patch960 -p1 +# Add in fpu patch +%patch961 -p1 + # # Patches 1000 to 5000 are reserved for bugfixes to drivers and filesystems # @@ -944,6 +949,10 @@ %patch1391 -p1 # +# this fixes the nfs cookie handling to allow over 8-byte cookies +# needed for support of osx 10.3 and freebsd. +%patch1392 -p1 + # # Fix some firewire deadlocks (fixes from upstream maintainter) # @@ -1922,6 +1931,18 @@ # %changelog +* Tue Jun 15 2004 Jon Peatfield <J.S.Peatfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> +- fix fpu state to prevent kernel crash, see the redhat bugzilla entry: +- http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125900 +- which has a proposed patch for RHEL/FC1 +- http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=101125&action=view + +* Sat Jun 12 2004 Jon Peatfield <J.S.Peatfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> +- nfs patch from Trond to allow us to serve clients which use +- cookies != 8 bytes, OSX 10.3 uses 30 FreeBSD uses 20... +- See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125996 +- http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/Linux-2.4.x/2.4.23-rc1/linux-2.4.23-03-fix_osx.dif + * Tue Apr 13 2004 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> - Yet another additional r128 DRM check. (CAN-2004-0003) - Bounds checking in ISO9660 filesystem. (CAN-2004-0109) --cut-here-- I've been using these kernels on 6 of my RH8 machines since ~2pm (BST) yesterday: 2 Pentium-3 UP kernel i686 1 Pentium-4 UP kernel i686 1 Xeon 4-cpu kernel-smp i686 1 Pentium-MMX kernel i586 1 Athlon kernel athlon As soon as one of our SMP athlons and a hyperthread-aware Intel machine stops running jobs code I'll test on those too. I no longer have access to any i586 SMP machines or any which need i386 kernels. Unless something bad shows up I'll be upgrading the rest of our RH80 machines to this next week (in our regular reboot slot). Sorry for the delay in posting these but I was (finally) upgrading our site firewall yesterday so was spending most of my time reading through logs looking for errors in the config... -- Jon Jon Peatfield, Computer Officer, DAMTP, University of Cambridge Mail: jp107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/ -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
