On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:57:02PM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> I think something as simple as below would be okay. If requested I can
> put in DPRINTFN()s based on current printf()s, like I proposed in
> earlier diff in this thread. However more important part is, that I
> think DIAGNOSTIC
I think something as simple as below would be okay. If requested I can
put in DPRINTFN()s based on current printf()s, like I proposed in
earlier diff in this thread. However more important part is, that I
think DIAGNOSTIC ifdef should be removed as rest of the code, which
relies on `if (curlen >
Hi,
Whould below diff be okay, or just simple:
if (curlen > len)
curlen = len;
be more appropriate here?
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:02:49AM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote:
> > Now you have on M less in
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote:
> Now you have on M less in your tree checkout :-)
> Thanks for tracking this down.
There is one more change, which I would consider. It was visible after I
switched back to official snapshot kernel. Now that kernel is not
panicing,
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote:
> Now you have on M less in your tree checkout :-)
> Thanks for tracking this down.
Awesome, thank you! One down, more to go...
--
Regards,
Mikolaj
Now you have on M less in your tree checkout :-)
Thanks for tracking this down.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote:
> Honestly, I haven't spent much time to investigate how the curlen = 0 is
> getting generated exactly, because for me it will be very difficult to
>
Honestly, I haven't spent much time to investigate how the curlen = 0 is
getting generated exactly, because for me it will be very difficult to
understand that without the hardware on my side re-producing the same.
But I had look when the code was introduced to handle curlen == 0 later
in the
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 11:00:46PM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:19:37PM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> > So time of the crash varies and I guess probably there is no pattern
> > there. Here is new panic report, with some kernel printf()s added.
> >
> > Problem
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:19:37PM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> So time of the crash varies and I guess probably there is no pattern
> there. Here is new panic report, with some kernel printf()s added.
>
> Problem seems to be related that dataphyspage is greater than
> dataphyslastpage:
