MP Build... FYI

[Jim Gettys]

I'm still confused/concerned....  In particular, I have memories of a
change for manufacturing test to cause the systems to wake up on
multi-cast, to enable the mass suspend/resume testing of units.

Andres, did this ever go by chance into the 62x series of builds (as
opposed to being a separate kernel RPM?

If so, at which build did it go in?

My understanding of the situation is:
	623 - last fully tested MP build
	624 - first attempt at DCON power cycle hammer code, 
		missing a case.
	625 - most recent build, only intended for manufacturing test
		and burn-in, with working DCON power cycle hammer code.

                                  - Jim



On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 02:27 -0500, Mary Lou Jepsen wrote:
> thanks arnold.
> - Mary Lou
> 
> On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 14:40 +0800, Arnold.Kao at quantatw.com wrote:
> > Actually, I had asked our test engineer in CSMC to prepare 625 for the factory suspend/resume test tomorrow. They are doing this right now.  It means we should have both 624 and 625 test image to be ready tomorrow.  We can make decision which image we want to use in the factory suspend/resume test after we confirm the test result of the 4 machines that were failed with DCON problem before.  
> > 
> >  
> > Best Regards,
> > Arnold Kao
> > Quanta Computer Inc. 
> > Tel : 886-3-327-2345 EXT:18958
> > Fax : 886-3-328-9780
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Smith [mailto:smithbone at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard A. Smith
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:46 PM
> > To: John Watlington
> > Cc: Kim Quirk; Jim Gettys; Arnold Kao (高顯宗); Mary Lou Jepsen; devel; Andres Salomon
> > Subject: Re: MP Build... FYI
> > 
> > John Watlington wrote:
> > 
> > > Quanta wants assurance that the software workaround which was broken in 
> > > #4479 is fixed.
> > > Richard's testing is necessary to confirm this.   It is also essential 
> > > that the kernel fix
> > > which is theoretically the only difference between 624 and 625 be part 
> > > of the production
> > > test code to further confirm this.   If Quanta sees this problem AT ALL 
> > > in the production
> > > testing, there will be pressure to halt until further hardware/software 
> > > fixes are found.
> > 
> > I'm getting a slightly different story.  I was trying to meet with 
> > people yesterday to discuss the whole mfg testing procedure so I knew 
> > what was going on and what I would need to do to get the new kernel into 
> > the Run-In image.
> > 
> > Arnold tells me that he thinks its  too late to get the DCON workaround 
> > kernel into the Run-In image.  He suggestion was that if we see a DCON 
> > problem that we pull the machine out of the rack, update the kernel and 
> > then re-add it back into the testing.
> > 
> 
-- 
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child