Russell King wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:48:14PM +, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
(trimmed tie-fei.zang from the CC, added by mistake)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:35:20PM +, Russell King wrote:
Neither did I, but introducing printk's through the function, we narrowed
the
Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:29:39PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
Russell King wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:48:14PM +, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
(trimmed tie-fei.zang from the CC, added by mistake)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:35:20PM +
New devolpments.
I have upgraded to 2.6.16.41, applied a patch sent by Frederik that
removed the changed made in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/6/23/266 and
activated some more kernel debug, i.e., CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL,
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP, CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB,
Jose Goncalves wrote:
New devolpments.
I have upgraded to 2.6.16.41, applied a patch sent by Frederik that
removed the changed made in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/6/23/266 and
activated some more kernel debug, i.e., CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL,
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP
Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:13:15PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
1[18840.304048] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
virtual address 0012
1[18840.313046] printing eip:
4[18840.321687] c01bfa7a
1[18840.321714] *pde =
0[18840.331287] Oops
Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:34:15PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Are you using an unpatched gcc 4.1.1? Its optimizer did nasty things
to us, at least on an ARM target ...
That's ruled out. Please think about it for a moment - serial_in()
managed to work
Quoting Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:02:46PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
It could be a silly question (tamper with me as I'm not familiar with
such low level programming), but couldn't it be possible for a interrupt
to hit in the middle of the serial_in() calls
Quoting Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:07:18PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:34:15PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Are you using an unpatched gcc 4.1.1? Its optimizer did nasty things
to us, at least on an ARM
Hi again Russel,
I'm back, after some more testing. Here goes my report.
I've switched to another SBC and the kernel still Oops, so is not a
one-off fault on the hardware.
I've also run memtest86+ on this board for the maximum period that I
reach an Oops with my application (24 H) and it not
Russell King wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:33:28PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
I've also done your suggestion and I've inserted msleep(10); just
before the And clear the interrupt registers again for luck. and my
application is now running without problems fore more than 24H! So
Hi,
I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16 kernel (I've found the
problem on 2.6.16.37 and 2.6.16.38). I have a application that retreives
data from a GPS connected on a serial port. From time to time a get a
kernel Oops, like this:
[15423.488491] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16 kernel (I've found the
problem on 2.6.16.37 and 2.6.16.38). I have a application that retreives
data from a GPS connected on a serial port. From time to time
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16 kernel (I've found the
problem on 2.6.16.37
Jose Goncalves wrote:
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16
Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:13:15PM +0000, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>
>> <1>[18840.304048] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
>> virtual address 0012
>> <1>[18840.313046] printing eip:
>> <4>[18840.32168
Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:34:15PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
>> Are you using an unpatched gcc 4.1.1? Its optimizer did nasty things
>> to us, at least on an ARM target ...
>>
>
> That's ruled out. Please think about it for a moment - serial_in()
> managed
Quoting Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:02:46PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
It could be a silly question (tamper with me as I'm not familiar with
such low level programming), but couldn't it be possible for a interrupt
to hit in the middle of the serial_in()
Quoting Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:07:18PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:34:15PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
>> Are you using an unpatched gcc 4.1.1? Its optimizer did nasty things
Hi again Russel,
I'm back, after some more testing. Here goes my report.
I've switched to another SBC and the kernel still Oops, so is not a
one-off fault on the hardware.
I've also run memtest86+ on this board for the maximum period that I
reach an Oops with my application (24 H) and it not
Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:33:28PM +0000, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>
>> I've also done your suggestion and I've inserted "msleep(10);" just
>> before the "And clear the interrupt registers again for luck." and my
>> application is
Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:48:14PM +, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
>
>> (trimmed tie-fei.zang from the CC, added by mistake)
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:35:20PM +, Russell King wrote:
>>
Neither did I, but introducing printk's through the function, we
Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:29:39PM +0000, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>
>> Russell King wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:48:14PM +, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (trimmed tie-fei.zang
New devolpments.
I have upgraded to 2.6.16.41, applied a patch sent by Frederik that
removed the changed made in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/6/23/266 and
activated some more kernel debug, i.e., CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL,
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP, CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB,
Jose Goncalves wrote:
> New devolpments.
> I have upgraded to 2.6.16.41, applied a patch sent by Frederik that
> removed the changed made in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/6/23/266 and
> activated some more kernel debug, i.e., CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL,
> CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DE
Hi,
I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16 kernel (I've found the
problem on 2.6.16.37 and 2.6.16.38). I have a application that retreives
data from a GPS connected on a serial port. From time to time a get a
kernel Oops, like this:
[15423.488491] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +0000, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>
>> I'm having a problem with the latest 2.6.16 kernel (I've found the
>> problem on 2.6.16.37 and 2.6.16.38). I have a application that retreives
>> data from a GPS connected on
Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +0000, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>
>> Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm h
Jose Goncalves wrote:
> Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Jose Goncalves wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:50:25PM +, Jo
28 matches
Mail list logo
