2 ms·

Where is the mailing list thread discussing the fix? I'd need more context. It does sound like Intel admitted that they need to update the firmware to resolve t

Where is the mailing list thread discussing the fix? I'd need more context. It does sound like Intel admitted that they need to update the firmware to resolve this. Are you loading the Intel microcode? I found a related patch here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/29/178 https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/29/178

bitcharmer 6y ago
Skylake was launched in 2015. Why someone would think we submitted a patch 7 years before that date is beyond me. Maybe you haven't read my comment after all, I get that impression on LKML sometimes... Anyway, here it is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/13/631 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/13/631
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  I didn't think that was you, I just thought it was related and an example of how a similar patch could get approved. I looked at your example, and I'm sorry that you thought I was doubting you but it looks like that everything was resolved satisfactorily based on what I read for you. I didn't get the impression they were saying no, just that there was other ways to do it.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    > everything was resolved satisfactorily What part of "our fix was not accepted" do you deem as "resolved satisfactory". I provided you with a broad context and a reference to the original discussion that clearly shows there was opposition against a practical solution and a lack of promised fix on the hw-side, and you still have the audacity to say it was "resolved". The patch was not accepted into the mainline, so please explain what you mean when you say the problem was resolved? Resolved how? This is exactly what drives practitioners like myself away from contributing to the kernel.
    - janto 6y ago
      It doesn't look like you're that good at "reducing tension", as you describe it in your initial post. Maybe you should not be contributing to the kernel then?

2 ms·

Where is the mailing list thread discussing the fix? I'd need more context. It does sound like Intel admitted that they need to update the firmware to resolve t

by encryptluks2 6y ago

bitcharmer 6y ago
Skylake was launched in 2015. Why someone would think we submitted a patch 7 years before that date is beyond me. Maybe you haven't read my comment after all, I get that impression on LKML sometimes... Anyway, here it is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/13/631 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/13/631
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  I didn't think that was you, I just thought it was related and an example of how a similar patch could get approved. I looked at your example, and I'm sorry that you thought I was doubting you but it looks like that everything was resolved satisfactorily based on what I read for you. I didn't get the impression they were saying no, just that there was other ways to do it.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    > everything was resolved satisfactorily What part of "our fix was not accepted" do you deem as "resolved satisfactory". I provided you with a broad context and a reference to the original discussion that clearly shows there was opposition against a practical solution and a lack of promised fix on the hw-side, and you still have the audacity to say it was "resolved". The patch was not accepted into the mainline, so please explain what you mean when you say the problem was resolved? Resolved how? This is exactly what drives practitioners like myself away from contributing to the kernel.
    - janto 6y ago
      It doesn't look like you're that good at "reducing tension", as you describe it in your initial post. Maybe you should not be contributing to the kernel then?