On 2017-01-20 08:32:37 [-0800], Jens Axboe wrote:
> That's alright, sounds like it's not a -next regression, but rather something
> that is already broken. I can reproduce a lot of breakage if I enable
> CONFIG_DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE, in fact my system doesn't boot at all. This
> is the first
On 2017-01-20 08:09:36 [-0800], Jens Axboe wrote:
> Is there a full trace of this?
[3.654003] scsi host0: scsi_debug: version 1.86 [20160430]
[3.654003] dev_size_mb=8, opts=0x0, submit_queues=1, statistics=0
[3.660755] scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access Linuxscsi_debug 0186
On 01/20/2017 08:23 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> yes. With and without the patch there is a lot of wrong stuff like
>>> complains about a kobject initialized again. This leads to a double free
>>> at some point.
>>
>> And what patch are we talking about? I don't mind being CC'ed into a
On 01/20/2017 08:01 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 09:02:16 [+0800], kernel test robot wrote:
>> test-description: Trinity is a linux system call fuzz tester.
>
> you don't even get to fire up trinity. With and without the patch you
> crash very early.
>
>>
On 2017-01-19 09:02:16 [+0800], kernel test robot wrote:
> test-description: Trinity is a linux system call fuzz tester.
you don't even get to fire up trinity. With and without the patch you
crash very early.
> +-+++
> |
