On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 06:11:50PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 20/01/17 04:44 PM, Nils Holland wrote: > > > > Sounds like a good idea! I was a bit heasitant because, to be honest, > > I'm not at all an expert about the code in question and basically only > > saw how you fixed the issue in radeon and thought: "Well, let's see if > > I can do the same thing in amdgpu and if so, if it helps there, too". > > ;-) > > > > However, since you've said that a 32 bit fix in amdgpu generally seems > > like a good idea, > > Actually, unless your CPU can't run 64-bit code, I'd say running a > 64-bit kernel would be an overall even better idea for you, even with > 32-bit userspace. :) Anyway, this problem clearly needs to be fixed. Yep, that's certainly true! However, I have to admit that I'm intentionally regularly testing all kinds of stuff on pure 32 bit, because I think that most of the other "first like of testing", i.e. the developers themselves, are primarily working with 64 bit these days. So I thought it might make sense if someone keeps a little of an eye on 32 bit - after all, in general and if there are no technical reasons that speak agsinst it, things should work there, too. And indeed, during the past year I've spotted a few little things that were only causing problems on 32 bit - both in the kernel and other components like systemd - and which could subsequently be fixed in a relatively easy manner. > > I would indeed use a little time on the weekend to get a proper patch > > ready and submit it for review. Even if the "no wc for x86_32" part is > > probably the only thing it'll contain > > I wouldn't bother with that. There is no real reason against bringing it > all over in one go. Right, I'll see what I can do over the weekend. So stay tuned for my first ever proper (at least as far as the guidelines for submitting patches are concerned) patch and expect the worst. ;-) Greetings Nils
