On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 11:04:05PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "DJ" == Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > DJ> really ? I was under the impression that all the SMP capable C3's > DJ> were Nehemiah cores, which are 686 capable. > > Well: > > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : CentaurHauls > cpu family : 6 > model : 9 > model name : VIA Nehemiah > stepping : 10 > cpu MHz : 997.370 > cache size : 64 KB > fdiv_bug : no > hlt_bug : no > f00f_bug : no > coma_bug : no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 1 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr cx8 apic mtrr pge cmov pat > mmx fxsr sse rng rng_en ace ace_en > bogomips : 1998.41 > > (plus another identical CPU) ok, that's definitly 686 class (complete with the optional cmov extension). > FC5 doesn't install a SMP kernel on this machine sounds like an installer bug. > , and installing the > shipped SMP kernel results in something that spews a few thousand > identical messages about unhandled interrupts and then reboots. that'll be a kernel bug ;) > I'll be happy to provide more info if there's any data you'd like for me to > collect. > > I built 2.6.16-1.2070_FC5 with a custom i586-smp kernel that sets > CONFIG_MVIAC3_2 and it runs fine. I'll see if I can figure out what could be causing the difference (and try and get hold of a similar system to reproduce on) > DJ> that should be it, unless I've forgotten something. > Yep, that worked. (I eventually figured it out during the mailing > list delay.) Is there any possibility of getting some of these > alternate kernels into the base SRPM? It might be useful to have them > built for extras. I'd rather the 686-smp kernel 'just worked'. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
