On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>
> I had a similar issue with 2.6.22.9, but as I had a proprietary nvidia module
> loaded, I didn't report it. X was not enabled, though.
There is indeed a strong likelihood that yours is
related to that nvidia(P): please take it to them.
Hugh
>
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 15:09 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>
> >> Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
> >
> > Hmmhh, so now I rebooted and again tried to
> >
> > $ make
> >
> > the new kernel which again triggered this(?) BUG:
>
> I had a similar issue
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Hmmhh, so now I rebooted and again tried to
$ make
the new kernel which again triggered this(?) BUG:
I had a similar issue with 2.6.22.9, but as I had a proprietary nvidia
module loaded, I didn't report it. X was not
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Hmmhh, so now I rebooted and again tried to
$ make
the new kernel which again triggered this(?) BUG:
I had a similar issue with 2.6.22.9, but as I had a proprietary nvidia
module loaded, I didn't report it. X was not
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 15:09 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Hmmhh, so now I rebooted and again tried to
$ make
the new kernel which again triggered this(?) BUG:
I had a similar issue with 2.6.22.9, but
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I had a similar issue with 2.6.22.9, but as I had a proprietary nvidia module
loaded, I didn't report it. X was not enabled, though.
There is indeed a strong likelihood that yours is
related to that nvidia(P): please take it to them.
Hugh
Oct
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I've just seen this
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD
On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 18:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:22, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>
> > > Memtest did not find anything after 16 passes so I finally stopped
> it
> > > applied your patch and used
>
On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:22, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > Memtest did not find anything after 16 passes so I finally stopped it
> > applied your patch and used
> >
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK=y
> >
> >
On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:22, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Memtest did not find anything after 16 passes so I finally stopped it
applied your patch and used
CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK=y
and booted into
On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 18:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:22, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Memtest did not find anything after 16 passes so I finally stopped
it
applied your patch and used
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I've just seen this in
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 09:47 +, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 07:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg
On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
> > > (config
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
> > (config attached).
> >
> > Any ideas / which further information needed ?
>
> Thanks
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
(config attached).
Any ideas / which further information needed ?
Thanks for the report.
On Friday 14 September 2007 16:02, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:51 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
(config attached).
Any
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
> (config attached).
>
> Any ideas / which further information needed ?
Thanks for the report. Is it reproduceable? It seems like the
locks_free_lock
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
(config attached).
Any ideas / which further information needed ?
Soeren
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/locks.c:171!
invalid opcode: [#1]
Modules linked in: ipt_iprange ipt_REDIRECT capi
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
(config attached).
Any ideas / which further information needed ?
Soeren
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/locks.c:171!
invalid opcode: [#1]
Modules linked in: ipt_iprange ipt_REDIRECT capi
On Thursday 13 September 2007 19:20, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Dear all,
I've just seen this in dmesg on a AMD K7 / kernel 2.6.22.6 machine
(config attached).
Any ideas / which further information needed ?
Thanks for the report. Is it reproduceable? It seems like the
locks_free_lock call
24 matches
Mail list logo
