RE: obsolete code must die

I agree that removing support for any hardware is a bad idea but I question the idea of putting it all in one monolithic download (tar file). If we're considering the concern for less developed nations with older hardware, imagine how you would like to download the whole kernel with an old 2400

RE: obsolete code must die

I agree that removing support for any hardware is a bad idea but I question the idea of putting it all in one monolithic download (tar file). If we're considering the concern for less developed nations with older hardware, imagine how you would like to download the whole kernel with an old 2400

Building autofs

Hi all, I'm trying to use autofs for the first time and am running into some problems. First, the documentation seems quite weak, that is, I'm not sure if what I have is what I should have. I managed to find an autofs version 4 pre 9 tarball on the kernel mirrors. This seem the latest

Building autofs

Hi all, I'm trying to use autofs for the first time and am running into some problems. First, the documentation seems quite weak, that is, I'm not sure if what I have is what I should have. I managed to find an autofs version 4 pre 9 tarball on the kernel mirrors. This seem the latest

RE: /proc/stat missing disk_io info

Not to be pushy or anything but since I received zero responses to this I was wondering what else I can do. I'd be happy to patch the problem myself but I have no idea what the correct value for DK_MAX_MAJOR should be. Anywho, if anyone has any thoughts I'd appreciate them. --Rainer >

RE: /proc/stat missing disk_io info

Not to be pushy or anything but since I received zero responses to this I was wondering what else I can do. I'd be happy to patch the problem myself but I have no idea what the correct value for DK_MAX_MAJOR should be. Anywho, if anyone has any thoughts I'd appreciate them. --Rainer

/proc/stat missing disk_io info

Hi all, I was wondering why some of my disks don't show up in /proc/stat's disk_io line. Specifically, my line says: disk_io: (2,0):(144,144,288,0,0) (3,0):(35,35,140,0,0) This equates to my floppy and first cdrom. I also have a second cdrom (RW) and 2 hard disks. Looking at the code

/proc/stat missing disk_io info

Hi all, I was wondering why some of my disks don't show up in /proc/stat's disk_io line. Specifically, my line says: disk_io: (2,0):(144,144,288,0,0) (3,0):(35,35,140,0,0) This equates to my floppy and first cdrom. I also have a second cdrom (RW) and 2 hard disks. Looking at the code

RE: [patch] smbfs cache rewrite - 2nd try

; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Urban Widmark > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Rainer Mager; Scott A. Sibert > Subject: [patch] smbfs cache rewrite - 2nd try > > > > Smbfs testers want

RE: [patch] smbfs cache rewrite - 2nd try

: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Urban Widmark Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Rainer Mager; Scott A. Sibert Subject: [patch] smbfs cache rewrite - 2nd try Smbfs testers wanted, with or without highmem boxes. - To unsubscribe from

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Hi all, Well, I upgraded my system to glibc 2.2.1 with few problems. Unfortunately, there are no improvements in my stability problems. X still dies. So, I ask again, how can I debug this? How can I determine if this is a kernel problem or not? Thanks, --Rainer - To

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Hi all, Well, I upgraded my system to glibc 2.2.1 with few problems. Unfortunately, there are no improvements in my stability problems. X still dies. So, I ask again, how can I debug this? How can I determine if this is a kernel problem or not? Thanks, --Rainer - To

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

As per Russell King's suggestion, I ran memtest86 on my system for about 12 hours last night. I found no memory errors. Note that the tests did not complete because I had to stop them this morning. I'll contiue them tonight. They got through test 9 of 11. As per David Ford's suggestion, I am

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Thanks for all the info, comments below: First, I ran X in gdb and got the following via 'bt' after X died. This is my first experience with gdb so if I should do anything in particular, please tell me. #0 0x401addeb in __sigsuspend (set=0xb930) at

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Thanks for all the info, comments below: First, I ran X in gdb and got the following via 'bt' after X died. This is my first experience with gdb so if I should do anything in particular, please tell me. #0 0x401addeb in __sigsuspend (set=0xb930) at

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

As per Russell King's suggestion, I ran memtest86 on my system for about 12 hours last night. I found no memory errors. Note that the tests did not complete because I had to stop them this morning. I'll contiue them tonight. They got through test 9 of 11. As per David Ford's suggestion, I am

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

> Would this be an SMP IA32 box with glibc 2.2? I have two such boxen > showing exactly the same behaviour, although I can't reproduce it at will. Close, it is actually an SMP IA32 box with glibc 2.1.3. But you've now convinced me to not upgrade glibc yet ;-) --Rainer - To unsubscribe from

Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Hi all, I brought up this issue last month and had some response but as of yet my particular problem still exists. In brief, X windows dies with signal 11. I have done quite a bit of testing and this does not seem to be a hardware issue. Also, I have never managed to get a signal 11

Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Hi all, I brought up this issue last month and had some response but as of yet my particular problem still exists. In brief, X windows dies with signal 11. I have done quite a bit of testing and this does not seem to be a hardware issue. Also, I have never managed to get a signal 11

RE: Is this kernel related (signal 11)?

Would this be an SMP IA32 box with glibc 2.2? I have two such boxen showing exactly the same behaviour, although I can't reproduce it at will. Close, it is actually an SMP IA32 box with glibc 2.1.3. But you've now convinced me to not upgrade glibc yet ;-) --Rainer - To unsubscribe from this

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

> smb_rename suggests mv, but the process is ls ... er? What commands where > you running on smbfs when it crashed? > > Could this be a symbol mismatch? Keith Owens suggested a less manual way > to get module symbol output. Do you get the same results using that? Here is a newly parsed oops,

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

smb_rename suggests mv, but the process is ls ... er? What commands where you running on smbfs when it crashed? Could this be a symbol mismatch? Keith Owens suggested a less manual way to get module symbol output. Do you get the same results using that? Here is a newly parsed oops, this

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

Hi again, It looks like some progress is being made, *wonderful*, as to some earlier questions... > I'll have a look tonight or so. It works for you on non-bigmem? Yes. Absolutely no problems on non-bigmem. > smb_rename suggests mv, but the process is ls ... er? What commands where

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

Hi again, It looks like some progress is being made, *wonderful*, as to some earlier questions... I'll have a look tonight or so. It works for you on non-bigmem? Yes. Absolutely no problems on non-bigmem. smb_rename suggests mv, but the process is ls ... er? What commands where

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:09 AM > To: Rainer Mager > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable > > >>EIP; f88

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

I knew that, I was just testing you all. ;-) \e hides his head in shame > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:47 AM > To: Rainer Mager > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] &

Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

Hi all, I have a 100% reproducable bug in all of the 2.4.0 kernels including the latest stable one. The issue is that if I compile the kernel to support 4GB RAM (I have 1 GB) and then try to access a samba mount I get an oops. This ALWAYS happens. Usually after this the system is frozen

Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

Hi all, I have a 100% reproducable bug in all of the 2.4.0 kernels including the latest stable one. The issue is that if I compile the kernel to support 4GB RAM (I have 1 GB) and then try to access a samba mount I get an oops. This ALWAYS happens. Usually after this the system is frozen

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

I knew that, I was just testing you all. ;-) \e hides his head in shame -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:47 AM To: Rainer Mager Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Oops with 4GB

RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:09 AM To: Rainer Mager Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Oops with 4GB memory setting in 2.4.0 stable EIP; f889e044 END_OF_CODE+385bfe34/ = Trace

Signal 11 - revisited

I was wondering if anyone had any new info/suggestions for the Signal 11 problem. I think I last reported that I had tried 2.4.0test12 w AGPGart and DRM turned off. This seemed a bit more stable but I did have X crash with Signall 11 after about 1.5 days. I'd really appreciate any advice on how

Signal 11 - revisited

I was wondering if anyone had any new info/suggestions for the Signal 11 problem. I think I last reported that I had tried 2.4.0test12 w AGPGart and DRM turned off. This seemed a bit more stable but I did have X crash with Signall 11 after about 1.5 days. I'd really appreciate any advice on how

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Err, for those of us who aren't up to our elbows in the kernel code, is there a patch for this? Presumeably this will be rolled into 2.4.0test13 but I'd like to try it out? Also, can someone summarize the fix in English along with the expected, improved behavior (e.g. Linux will never have a

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Mike et al, I have no idea what IKD is and I don't know what to do with any results I might find BUT I'd be happy to do this if it will help. Please pass on the info with the instructions. Who should I report the results to? --Rainer > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Give that man a cigarit was an env var (not LOCALE but LANG). I'd actually checked this but I didn't think that made a difference in my case. Thanks Linus, now can you fix the larger signal 11 problem? --Rainer > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds > I'd guess that the

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Mike et al, I have no idea what IKD is and I don't know what to do with any results I might find BUT I'd be happy to do this if it will help. Please pass on the info with the instructions. Who should I report the results to? --Rainer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Give that man a cigarit was an env var (not LOCALE but LANG). I'd actually checked this but I didn't think that made a difference in my case. Thanks Linus, now can you fix the larger signal 11 problem? --Rainer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds I'd guess that the

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Err, for those of us who aren't up to our elbows in the kernel code, is there a patch for this? Presumeably this will be rolled into 2.4.0test13 but I'd like to try it out? Also, can someone summarize the fix in English along with the expected, improved behavior (e.g. Linux will never have a

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Thanks for the info... > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey > > So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems? > > There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it's 100% > reproducable. Finding it will be tough Ok, granted this will be tough but

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Hi again, Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling the new kernel I chose to disable AGPGart and RDM as suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will report later if this makes any

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Hi again, Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling the new kernel I chose to disable AGPGart and RDM as suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will report later if this makes any

RE: Signal 11 - the continuing saga

Thanks for the info... [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems? There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it's 100% reproducable. Finding it will be tough Ok, granted this will be tough but is

RE: Signal 11

(This message contains a number of related replies.) > From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Is init permanently running after you see a couple of these? No, that is, after 23 hours up time it has used only 6 seconds CPU time (according to top). That reminds me that I should repeat

RE: Signal 11

Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help figure this out? Thanks, --Rainer -Original Message- From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:07 PM To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark

RE: Signal 11

Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help figure this out? Thanks, --Rainer -Original Message- From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:07 PM To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark

RE: Signal 11

(This message contains a number of related replies.) From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Is init permanently running after you see a couple of these? No, that is, after 23 hours up time it has used only 6 seconds CPU time (according to top). That reminds me that I should repeat

OOPS when using 4GB memory setting

Hi all, About 1 month back I reported a problem with getting OOPs when running with a kernel compiled with the 4GB memory setting. Since then I've finally managed to get the ksymoops results. Where should I post them? To review: My machine has 1GB RAM. If I build a

RE: Signal 11

To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Vojkovich Subject: Re: Signal 11 > > wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I > > would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20 > > XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid

RE: Signal 11

To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Vojkovich Subject: Re: Signal 11 wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20 XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2

OOPS when using 4GB memory setting

Hi all, About 1 month back I reported a problem with getting OOPs when running with a kernel compiled with the 4GB memory setting. Since then I've finally managed to get the ksymoops results. Where should I post them? To review: My machine has 1GB RAM. If I build a

RE: Signal 11

Hi all, Thanks for all the input so far. Regarding this... > (I'm not sure exactly what cerberos does, do you have a link for it ?). The official name is "Cerberus Test Control System" aka CTCS. I don't know the official site but a search for this should reveal something. Anyway it is

Signal 11

Hi all, I've searched around for a answer to this with no real luck yet. If anyone has some ideas I'd be very grateful. I recently upgraded to a new machine. It is running RedHat 6.2 Linux (with a SMP 2.4.0test[8-11] kernel) and has a Matrox G400 in it. X is 4.0.1. Anyway, about

Signal 11

Hi all, I've searched around for a answer to this with no real luck yet. If anyone has some ideas I'd be very grateful. I recently upgraded to a new machine. It is running RedHat 6.2 Linux (with a SMP 2.4.0test[8-11] kernel) and has a Matrox G400 in it. X is 4.0.1. Anyway, about

RE: Signal 11

Hi all, Thanks for all the input so far. Regarding this... (I'm not sure exactly what cerberos does, do you have a link for it ?). The official name is "Cerberus Test Control System" aka CTCS. I don't know the official site but a search for this should reveal something. Anyway it is a

OOPS when using 4GB memory setting

Hi all, Please respond directly since I'm not on this mailing list. I have 2 intertwined problems that my initial web research has failed to reveal help. I recently upgraded machines and the new one has 1GB RAM. If I build a 2.4.0pre10 (or 8 or 9, I haven't tried earlier) kernel

OOPS when using 4GB memory setting

Hi all, Please respond directly since I'm not on this mailing list. I have 2 intertwined problems that my initial web research has failed to reveal help. I recently upgraded machines and the new one has 1GB RAM. If I build a 2.4.0pre10 (or 8 or 9, I haven't tried earlier) kernel