Hi,
Is this a known problem?
Thanks,
Martin
cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/lo/rp_filter
<1>Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 419a91d8
printing eip:
c0116644
*pde =
Oops: [#6]
Modules linked in:
CPU:0
EIP:0060:[]Not tainted VLI
EFLAGS: 00010246
Jim,
Thanks for the info, comments interleaved below
Thanks
Martin
Jim Roland wrote:
>
> Activating an IDE drive in an older BIOS (newer ones have a SCSI option in
> the "A/C/CDROM" options) will always force an IDE drive boot with older
> BIOSes. Older BIOSes are written to stop looking for
Jim,
Thanks for the info, comments interleaved below
Thanks
Martin
Jim Roland wrote:
Activating an IDE drive in an older BIOS (newer ones have a SCSI option in
the A/C/CDROM options) will always force an IDE drive boot with older
BIOSes. Older BIOSes are written to stop looking for a
Hi,
I have a SMP P166 system that has been running for years with an AIC7xxx SCSI card as
opposed to the native IDE interface. The BIOS has the IDE 0,1,2,3 set to .
Running out of disk space I installed one of the original IDE drives. The kernel
booted and ID'd the drive correctly. Kernel
Hi,
I have a SMP P166 system that has been running for years with an AIC7xxx SCSI card as
opposed to the native IDE interface. The BIOS has the IDE 0,1,2,3 set to NONE.
Running out of disk space I installed one of the original IDE drives. The kernel
booted and ID'd the drive correctly. Kernel
Chris,
I reported the same thing on 11/19/00, whether this is a feature or bug for
2.4.X was not determined. Was this behavior intentionally changed and why?
Looks like 2.2.X gives ECONNREFUSED, but 2.4.X doesn't and times out.
Chris,
I reported the same thing on 11/19/00, whether this is a feature or bug for
2.4.X was not determined. Was this behavior intentionally changed and why?
Looks like 2.2.X gives ECONNREFUSED, but 2.4.X doesn't and times out.
Hi Neil,
I thought I'd seen this same bug on 2.4.0-test12 after I applied your patch
but didn't follow up until now. sorry.
Anyway, with 2.4.0-prerelease and an updated loop.c.patch, below the ksymoops
output (your patch updated to 2.4.0-prerelease), I got the following BUG reports.
So it
Hi Neil,
I thought I'd seen this same bug on 2.4.0-test12 after I applied your patch
but didn't follow up until now. sorry.
Anyway, with 2.4.0-prerelease and an updated loop.c.patch, below the ksymoops
output (your patch updated to 2.4.0-prerelease), I got the following BUG reports.
So it
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > On Monday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > " " == M H VanLeeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Trond, Neil I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS
> > > > bug but since
Alexander Viro wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
" " == M H VanLeeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Trond, Neil I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS
bug but since nfs_fs.h was implicated so I
Trond, Neil
I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS bug but since
nfs_fs.h was implicated so I thought one of you may be interested.
Could you let me know if you know this problem has already been fixed
or if you need more info.
Martin
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
kernel
Trond, Neil
I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS bug but since
nfs_fs.h was implicated so I thought one of you may be interested.
Could you let me know if you know this problem has already been fixed
or if you need more info.
Martin
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
kernel
Hi,
I've notices weird compile time failures etc on test12-pre7, especially
running more than 2 simultaneous processes...
but most noticeable is the time it takes to run ldconfig, after the
first time test11 takes less than 1 second, test12-pre7 takes ~40
seconds.
both were run immediately
Hi,
I got this BUG report after test12-pre7 soft locked on my NFS server,
all nfsd's in D state and I had to reboot and system was rebuilding the
ide RAID1 arrays.
NFS client test12-pre7 was rebooted as well, root logged in, and ran ldconfig
NFS server BUG'd out
Hand copied OOPS hope too much
Hi,
I got this BUG report after test12-pre7 soft locked on my NFS server,
all nfsd's in D state and I had to reboot and system was rebuilding the
ide RAID1 arrays.
NFS client test12-pre7 was rebooted as well, root logged in, and ran ldconfig
NFS server BUG'd out
Hand copied OOPS hope too much
Hi,
I've notices weird compile time failures etc on test12-pre7, especially
running more than 2 simultaneous processes...
but most noticeable is the time it takes to run ldconfig, after the
first time test11 takes less than 1 second, test12-pre7 takes ~40
seconds.
both were run immediately
in this basic behavior.
Martin
David Ford wrote:
>
> rpc.portmap isn't running, your login configuration/nss requires yp or something
>provided ans an RPC.
>
> -d
>
> "M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
>
> > I had occasion to "telinit 1" today and found tha
I had occasion to "telinit 1" today and found that it took a long time
to login after root passwd was entered. this doesn't happen with 2.2.X
kernels.
Is this to be expected with the 2.4 series kernels? or a bug?
Martin
strace for 2.4.0-test11-pre7
---snip---
gettimeofday({974665658,
I had occasion to "telinit 1" today and found that it took a long time
to login after root passwd was entered. this doesn't happen with 2.2.X
kernels.
Is this to be expected with the 2.4 series kernels? or a bug?
Martin
strace for 2.4.0-test11-pre7
---snip---
gettimeofday({974665658,
this basic behavior.
Martin
David Ford wrote:
rpc.portmap isn't running, your login configuration/nss requires yp or something
provided ans an RPC.
-d
"M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
I had occasion to "telinit 1" today and found that it took a long time
to login
"CRADOCK, Christopher" wrote:
>
> I have a similar hardware list and I don't observe any of these problems on
> 2.4.0-test10x. Is it possibly a hardware conflict somewhere?
>
> What I do see occasionally is if X was ever heavy on the memory usage (say
> I've run GIMP for a couple of hours) then
David Ford wrote:
>
> "M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
>
> > 3. Enabling PIIX4, kernel locks hard when printing the partition
> >tables for hdc. hdc has no partitions.
> >I think this problem is on Ted's problem list???
>
> Disable PIIXn tuning and r
David Ford wrote:
"M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
3. Enabling PIIX4, kernel locks hard when printing the partition
tables for hdc. hdc has no partitions.
I think this problem is on Ted's problem list???
Disable PIIXn tuning and recompile your kernel. How does it fare n
"CRADOCK, Christopher" wrote:
I have a similar hardware list and I don't observe any of these problems on
2.4.0-test10x. Is it possibly a hardware conflict somewhere?
What I do see occasionally is if X was ever heavy on the memory usage (say
I've run GIMP for a couple of hours) then the
FYI,
My list of 2.4.0-testX problems
Further details, .config, etc...available if needed
Martin
2.4.0-test10 and earlier problem list:
Problem | UP UP-APIC SMP
|
1 | OK OK
FYI,
My list of 2.4.0-testX problems
Further details, .config, etc...available if needed
Martin
2.4.0-test10 and earlier problem list:
Problem | UP UP-APIC SMP
|
1 | OK OK
need help getting tapX devices operational on 2.4
for 2.4 using the new tun.o module I cannot create a tap0
interface. on 2.2 it is the ethertap.o module.
changing modules.conf allows the module to load but the
interface does not come up:
ifconfig tap0 192.168.0.10 up
SIOCSIFADDR: No such
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> IRQ 5 may well have gone to an onboard device.
>
> There are two things to note here:
>
> 1. By default if you boot with non PnP OS the BIOS will assign IRQ's
> to PnP devices and we would be best to try and keep the existing value when
> possible (so the PCI/ISA
Alan Cox wrote:
IRQ 5 may well have gone to an onboard device.
There are two things to note here:
1. By default if you boot with non PnP OS the BIOS will assign IRQ's
to PnP devices and we would be best to try and keep the existing value when
possible (so the PCI/ISA routing is
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
> >
> > Is this patch acceptable?
>
> Please explain.
>
> The test seems to be that "if there are IO_APICs, a PnP irq _has_ to be an
> IO_APIC irq".
>
>
char *buffer; /* pointer to begin of buffer */
@@ -448,7 +454,7 @@
isapnp_printf(buffer, "%sIRQ ", space);
for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
- if (irq->map & (1<map & (1<From previous e-mails
"M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
&
if (!first) {
isapnp_printf(buffer, ",");
} else {
--
From previous e-mails
"M.H.VanLeeuwen" wrote:
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Tue, 29
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
Is this patch acceptable?
Please explain.
The test seems to be that "if there are IO_APICs, a PnP irq _has_ to be an
IO_APIC irq".
+ if (!IO_APIC_IRQ(irq) io_apic_irqs)
+ return 1
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
>
> > With default BIOS settings, IRQ 5 is unavailable for ISA yet
> > it is being assigned by the ne.c driver and NFS root system
> > doesn't finish booting.
> >
> > Is th
David Ford wrote:
>
> Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > > 4. Boot Time Failures
> > >
> > > * Use PCI DMA 'lost interrupt' problem with some hw [which ?] (NEC
> > >Versa LX with PIIX tuning)
> >
> > If this is a rare version of the BX/LX that has a no fix errata, then it
> > will be messy
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
>
> > With default BIOS settings, IRQ 5 is unavailable for ISA yet
> > it is being assigned by the ne.c driver and NFS root system
> > doesn't finish booting.
> >
> > Is th
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
With default BIOS settings, IRQ 5 is unavailable for ISA yet
it is being assigned by the ne.c driver and NFS root system
doesn't finish booting.
Is this a driver problem or a ISAPNP problem?
It is general IRQ
38 matches
Mail list logo
