Andrei Mikhailovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
> 2.6.10/2.6.9.
Andrei, is this still happening in 2.6.12-rc1?
Thanks.
> Here is the output from dmesg:
>
> Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
>
Andrei Mikhailovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
2.6.10/2.6.9.
Andrei, is this still happening in 2.6.12-rc1?
Thanks.
Here is the output from dmesg:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
* Jean Delvare ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi Greg, all,
>
> > > Not that I really care, but isn't there a rule that a patch "... can
> > > not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace
> > > cleanups, etc.)"?
> >
> > Good point. Jean, care to respin the patch?
>
> Sure,
Hi Greg, all,
> > Not that I really care, but isn't there a rule that a patch "... can
> > not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace
> > cleanups, etc.)"?
>
> Good point. Jean, care to respin the patch?
Sure, sorry for the trouble.
---
This is a rewrite of the
Hi Greg, all,
Not that I really care, but isn't there a rule that a patch ... can
not contain any trivial fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace
cleanups, etc.)?
Good point. Jean, care to respin the patch?
Sure, sorry for the trouble.
---
This is a rewrite of the
* Jean Delvare ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Greg, all,
Not that I really care, but isn't there a rule that a patch ... can
not contain any trivial fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace
cleanups, etc.)?
Good point. Jean, care to respin the patch?
Sure, sorry for the
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:37:40PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> >
> > --
> >
> > This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
>
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
>
> --
>
> This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
> broken in the case where the underlying adapter supports I2C_FUNC_I2C.
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
broken in the case where the underlying adapter supports I2C_FUNC_I2C.
It also includes related fixes which ensure that different
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
broken in the case where the underlying adapter supports I2C_FUNC_I2C.
It also includes related fixes which ensure that different
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
broken in the case where the underlying adapter supports I2C_FUNC_I2C.
It
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:37:40PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
This is a rewrite of the saa7110_write_block function, which was plain
broken in
[Randy Dunlap]
> I've been working on this with Daniel Staaf and Jean Delvare.
> Jean enabled some more/different I2C bit banging code in
> 2.6.11, and that causes callers to use it differently.
Actually credits go to Ian Campbell for noticing that i2c-algo-bit was
reporting less capabilities
[Randy Dunlap]
I've been working on this with Daniel Staaf and Jean Delvare.
Jean enabled some more/different I2C bit banging code in
2.6.11, and that causes callers to use it differently.
Actually credits go to Ian Campbell for noticing that i2c-algo-bit was
reporting less capabilities than
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Hi Andrei,
I've been working on this with Daniel Staaf and Jean Delvare.
Jean enabled some more/different
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Hi Andrei,
I've been working on this with Daniel Staaf and Jean Delvare.
Jean enabled some more/different
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
I have one other request. Load each (related) module one at a time,
to make sure that there is no module
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Well thanks, I've looked thru this but I'm not getting anywhere
on it. Also, there aren't many changes in
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Output-
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
PGD 103027 PUD
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Output-
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
880d909f{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
Well thanks, I've looked thru this but I'm not getting anywhere
on it. Also, there aren't many changes in
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hi Randy,
Done the kstack=32, here is the output:
cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/hda2 ro kstack=32 console=tty0
P.S. Yeah, this oops is repeatable; hapens everytime
I have one other request. Load each (related) module one at a time,
to make sure that there is no module
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
2.6.10/2.6.9.
Here is the output from dmesg:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
PGD 103027 PUD 105027 PMD 3ee64067 PTE 0
Oops: [1]
CPU
I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
2.6.10/2.6.9.
Here is the output from dmesg:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
PGD 103027 PUD 105027 PMD 3ee64067 PTE 0
Oops: [1]
CPU 0
Modules linked in:
I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
2.6.10/2.6.9.
Here is the output from dmesg:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
880d909f{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
PGD 103027 PUD 105027 PMD 3ee64067 PTE 0
Oops: [1]
CPU 0
Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
I get the oops during the boot up process. This did not happen in
2.6.10/2.6.9.
Here is the output from dmesg:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at 880db000 RIP:
880d909f{:saa7110:saa7110_write_block+127}
PGD 103027 PUD 105027 PMD 3ee64067 PTE 0
26 matches
Mail list logo
