On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Please, apply. What's happing here is simple - we set i_ino by
> PID and get something out of range of per-process inode. Confusion
> follows... Fix: move initializing ->u.proc_i.task past the check.
> Then proc_delete_inode() will be happy with
Please, apply. What's happing here is simple - we set i_ino by
PID and get something out of range of per-process inode. Confusion
follows... Fix: move initializing ->u.proc_i.task past the check.
Then proc_delete_inode() will be happy with it.
Alois, Bryce - that ought to fix the
I have reported before a kernel oops.
I now oberserved the same oops, with the same stack trace,
and a Dell Poweredge 1550 with dual CPU, 1 gb RAM, only
one disk and with little disk usage (most file activity via
NFS, where this system is a client).
The kernel is identical to the one reported
I run kernel 2.4.5 on Dell Poweredge 2450 with 1.5 Gb RAM
and an onboard adaptec disk driver, dual pentium III 933 Mhz,
3 disks (160 mb transfer rate, 36 Gb each).
When I put the system under heavy load today (load level 15, about 20
httpd processes and three concurrent copies of large file
I run kernel 2.4.5 on Dell Poweredge 2450 with 1.5 Gb RAM
and an onboard adaptec disk driver, dual pentium III 933 Mhz,
3 disks (160 mb transfer rate, 36 Gb each).
When I put the system under heavy load today (load level 15, about 20
httpd processes and three concurrent copies of large file
I have reported before a kernel oops.
I now oberserved the same oops, with the same stack trace,
and a Dell Poweredge 1550 with dual CPU, 1 gb RAM, only
one disk and with little disk usage (most file activity via
NFS, where this system is a client).
The kernel is identical to the one reported
Please, apply. What's happing here is simple - we set i_ino by
PID and get something out of range of per-process inode. Confusion
follows... Fix: move initializing -u.proc_i.task past the check.
Then proc_delete_inode() will be happy with it.
Alois, Bryce - that ought to fix the
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Please, apply. What's happing here is simple - we set i_ino by
PID and get something out of range of per-process inode. Confusion
follows... Fix: move initializing -u.proc_i.task past the check.
Then proc_delete_inode() will be happy with it.
well, my guess is that the compiler misscompiles your kernel.
stil _contrary_ to REPORTING_BUGS file you did not gave any info about
your system.
some usefull stuff you should email are (adjust it to your setup)
a)
cd /usr/src/linux
rm fs/buffer.o
make fs/buffer.o
well, my guess is that the compiler misscompiles your kernel.
stil _contrary_ to REPORTING_BUGS file you did not gave any info about
your system.
some usefull stuff you should email are (adjust it to your setup)
a)
cd /usr/src/linux
rm fs/buffer.o
make fs/buffer.o
10 matches
Mail list logo
