Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-26 Thread Mark Ellis
Nope that didn't help. I'm using gcc 2.95.2, didn't think of it before since it has never caused me any problems. I'll get around to trying 2.91.66 at some point. A quick aside, anyone know of a problem with the list, I seem to be being cut off at random intervals :) Mark On Fri, 24 Nov 2000

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-26 Thread Mark Ellis
Nope that didn't help. I'm using gcc 2.95.2, didn't think of it before since it has never caused me any problems. I'll get around to trying 2.91.66 at some point. A quick aside, anyone know of a problem with the list, I seem to be being cut off at random intervals :) Mark On Fri, 24 Nov 2000

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Marc Heckmann
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 10:55:39AM +, Mark Ellis wrote: > Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens > in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens > for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this related to >

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Alan Cox
> Not my area, but I don't think exec_usermodehelper() should assume > that current->files is always valid. > > Al, is this correct? If so, does daemonize() also need this test? > If not, then how did this thread get (current->files == NULL)? exit_files() will leave it NULL yes. You may want

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Keith Owens
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:55:39 +, Mark Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens >in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens >for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Ellis wrote: > > Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. When pppd downs the ppp0 device, unregister_netdevice() is trying to run /sbin/hotplug in a new kernel thread. That thread's `files' structure is copied from pppd, but it is NULL. Presumably pppd's files

OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Mark Ellis
Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this related to the modutils incompatability (modutils 2.3.19) ? CONFIG_PPP and

OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Mark Ellis
Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this related to the modutils incompatability (modutils 2.3.19) ? CONFIG_PPP and

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Ellis wrote: Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. When pppd downs the ppp0 device, unregister_netdevice() is trying to run /sbin/hotplug in a new kernel thread. That thread's `files' structure is copied from pppd, but it is NULL. Presumably pppd's files

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Keith Owens
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:55:39 +, Mark Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this related

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Alan Cox
Not my area, but I don't think exec_usermodehelper() should assume that current-files is always valid. Al, is this correct? If so, does daemonize() also need this test? If not, then how did this thread get (current-files == NULL)? exit_files() will leave it NULL yes. You may want to

Re: OOPS on bringing down ppp

2000-11-24 Thread Marc Heckmann
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 10:55:39AM +, Mark Ellis wrote: Hi all, consistently getting the following when pppd is terminated. Happens in 2.4.0-test11, fine in 2.4.0-test9, don't know about test10. Same happens for pppd 2.4.0b4 and 2.4.0, both recompiled for test11. Is this related to the