--- Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg,
> it seems that:
> arch/x86/pci/legacy.c :: pci_legacy_init()
>
> tries to create already created "bridge" symlinks in 2.6.24. So we
> discover the same devices twice? Can this be a reason for the hang?
No, it can't be because it's *not*
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 9:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
> > Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 9:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sysfs:
--- Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg,
it seems that:
arch/x86/pci/legacy.c :: pci_legacy_init()
tries to create already created bridge symlinks in 2.6.24. So we
discover the same devices twice? Can this be a reason for the hang?
No, it can't be because it's *not* hanging in this
On Feb 18, 2008 9:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
> Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
> > > > > WARNING: at
On Feb 18, 2008 9:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
> > > > WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
> > > > Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted
--- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
> > > WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
> > > Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.1 #1
> > > [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
> > > [] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> > > []
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:00:49 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > [Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have managed to boot
--- Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
> > WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
> > Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.1 #1
> > [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
> > [] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> > [] dump_stack+0x6c/0x72
--- Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and here it hangs, I assume?
Oops, I think you have misunderstood. The hang happens if I *don't* specify
acpi=noirq, whereas in
this case I did. I have already reported the original hang under threads:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
>
> Hi,
>
> I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog
> enabled, by using the
> "acpi=noirq" option.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
>
> Hi,
>
> I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog
> enabled, by using the
> "acpi=noirq" option.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog
enabled, by using the
acpi=noirq option. (There does
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog
enabled, by using the
acpi=noirq option. (There does
--- Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and here it hangs, I assume?
Oops, I think you have misunderstood. The hang happens if I *don't* specify
acpi=noirq, whereas in
this case I did. I have already reported the original hang under threads:
--- Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.1 #1
[c0105020] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[c0105990] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[c010613d]
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:00:49 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:54:08 + (GMT) Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this
--- Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.1 #1
[c0105020] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[c0105990] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[c010613d]
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:42:25 + (GMT)
Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sysfs: duplicate filename 'bridge' can not be created
WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:424 sysfs_add_one()
Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.1 #1
[Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog enabled,
by using the
"acpi=noirq" option. (There does seem to be some unhappiness with bridge
symlinks in sysfs,
though.)
Cheers,
Chris
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog enabled,
by using the
"acpi=noirq" option. (There does seem to be some unhappiness with bridge
symlinks in sysfs,
though.)
Cheers,
Chris
__
Sent from
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog enabled,
by using the
acpi=noirq option. (There does seem to be some unhappiness with bridge
symlinks in sysfs,
though.)
Cheers,
Chris
__
Sent from
[Try this again, except this time I'll force the attachment as inline text!]
Hi,
I have managed to boot 2.6.24.1 on this machine, with the NMI watchdog enabled,
by using the
acpi=noirq option. (There does seem to be some unhappiness with bridge
symlinks in sysfs,
though.)
Cheers,
Chris
Linux
--- Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here is the snapshots in patch format:
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
Thanks, they're very pretty. But what exactly are they patches *between*?
Cheers,
Chris
Hi!
here is the snapshots in patch format:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
On 2/9/08, Chris Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does any older kernel version work? 2.6.23? Newer ones?
> Everything up to and including 2.6.23.11
--- Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does any older kernel version work? 2.6.23? Newer ones?
Everything up to and including 2.6.23.11 works fine. I never tried
2.6.23.{12,13,14,15}, but I
expect they're fine too.
> 2.6.24-git15?
No idea. This box isn't really set up to use git. Anyway, I
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:06:06PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
> --- Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
> > > I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
> > > nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are
--- Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
> > I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
> > nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are IRQs still not
> > being enabled.
>
> Does 2.6.24 work? Is this a
--- Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are IRQs still not
being enabled.
Does 2.6.24 work? Is this a 2.6.24.1
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:06:06PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
--- Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are IRQs still not
--- Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does any older kernel version work? 2.6.23? Newer ones?
Everything up to and including 2.6.23.11 works fine. I never tried
2.6.23.{12,13,14,15}, but I
expect they're fine too.
2.6.24-git15?
No idea. This box isn't really set up to use git. Anyway, I
Hi!
here is the snapshots in patch format:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
On 2/9/08, Chris Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does any older kernel version work? 2.6.23? Newer ones?
Everything up to and including 2.6.23.11 works fine.
--- Oliver Pinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here is the snapshots in patch format:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
Thanks, they're very pretty. But what exactly are they patches *between*?
Cheers,
Chris
___
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
> nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are IRQs still not
> being enabled.
Does 2.6.24 work? Is this a 2.6.24.1 regression?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To
Hi,
I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without nmi_watchdog being
enabled. It looks
like there are IRQs still not being enabled.
Cheers,
Chris
Linux version 2.6.24.1 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat
4.1.2-33))
#1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Feb 8 22:41:10 GMT 2008
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:31:24PM +, Chris Rankin wrote:
Hi,
I've just tried booting the 2.6.24.1 kernel, except without
nmi_watchdog being enabled. It looks like there are IRQs still not
being enabled.
Does 2.6.24 work? Is this a 2.6.24.1 regression?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To
37 matches
Mail list logo
