> Applied that patch and UP kernel built ok, and then crashed in the
> same place with the memset() to a user-looking address from kmem_cache_alloc()
>
> So the percpu changes are innocent ... something else since 2.6.24 is
> to blame. Only 5749 commits :-) I'll start bisecting.
The bisection na
> So the percpu changes are innocent ... something else since 2.6.24 is
> to blame. Only 5749 commits :-) I'll start bisecting.
12 bisections later ... nothing! I think I got lost in the
maze. Bisection #5 had a crash, but it looked to be a very
differnt crash (and looked to happen later than
> hm, as far as i could check, on ia64 UP the .percpu section link
> difference was the only ia64 difference i could find out of those
> changes. Could you try to copy a 2.6.24 include/asm-generic/percpu.h,
> include/asm-ia64.h and include/linux/percpu.h into your current tree,
> and see whethe
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:29AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I'm having trouble replicating this error. With the latest linux-2.6.git
> > plus the patch I just sent, I get the following errors:
> >
> > drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:45: error: __param_proto causes a
> > section type confli
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll start digging on why this doesn't boot ... but you might as well
> > send the fixes so far upstream to Linus so that the SMP fix is available
>
> Well a pure 2.6.24 version compiled with CONFIG_SMP=n booted just
> fine, so the breakage is recent
> I'll start digging on why this doesn't boot ... but you might as well
> send the fixes so far upstream to Linus so that the SMP fix is available
Well a pure 2.6.24 version compiled with CONFIG_SMP=n booted just fine, so
the breakage is recent ... and more than likely related to this change.
I'v
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which
>> > i've put into x86.git, you can pull it from:
>>
>> Looks ok for powerpc so far, I haven't gotten through all defconfigs
>> yet but the first ones that
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:58PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which
> > > i've put into x86.git, you can pull it from:
> >
> > Looks ok for powerpc so far, I haven't gotten throu
* Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which
> > i've put into x86.git, you can pull it from:
>
> Looks ok for powerpc so far, I haven't gotten through all defconfigs
> yet but the first ones that failed before build now. p
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll start digging on why this doesn't boot ... but you might as well
> send the fixes so far upstream to Linus so that the SMP fix is
> available (which is all anyone really cares about ... there are very,
> very few UP ia64 systems in existence).
>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git,
>> > ia64 buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont
>> > know whether it boots ...)
>>
>> Uni-processor build still fails with this patch
> this i believe builds an implicit dependency between the mca_asm.o
> position within the image and the ia64_mca_data percpu variable it
> accesses - it relies on the immediate 22 addressing mode that has 4MB of
> scope. Per chance, the .config you sent creates a 14MB image, and the
> percpu v
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > could you send the .config you are using?
>
> Ok. Attached.
thanks a ton - this produced a link error here too.
after half an hour of head scratching, the updated patch below solves
the build problem.
The problem i believe is this code in arch/ia6
> could you send the .config you are using?
Ok. Attached.
-Tony
upconfig
Description: upconfig
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah, that was the vital clue. The patch below makes the small memory
> > model only defined on SMP, and makes the config build/link fine here.
> > Does this build and boot on your box?
>
> I applied this on top of the git pull from
> git://git.kernel
> ah, that was the vital clue. The patch below makes the small memory
> model only defined on SMP, and makes the config build/link fine here.
> Does this build and boot on your box?
I applied this on top of the git pull from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git
a
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some place in there. The CONFIG_SMP=n path in ia64 makes quite
> > radical changes ... rather than putting all the per-cpu stuff into
> > the top 64K of address space and providing a per-cpu TLB mapping for
> > that range to a different physical ad
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is only defined for !__ASSEMBLY__
>
> Some place in there. The CONFIG_SMP=n path in ia64 makes quite
> radical changes ... rather than putting all the per-cpu stuff into the
> top 64K of address space and providing a per-cpu TLB mapping for tha
> I'm having trouble replicating this error. With the latest linux-2.6.git
> plus the patch I just sent, I get the following errors:
>
> drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:45: error: __param_proto causes a section
> type conflict
> drivers/md/md.c:5881: error: __param_start_ro causes a section ty
* Mike Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could this be a problem with:
>
> #ifdef HAVE_MODEL_SMALL_ATTRIBUTE
> # define PER_CPU_ATTRIBUTES __attribute__((__model__ (__small__)))
> #endif
>
> This is only defined for !__ASSEMBLY__
nope, moving that per the patch below did not resolve the
> could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which i've
> put into x86.git, you can pull it from:
>
>git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git
>
> it's a fixes only tree, ontop of Linus-very-latest. Head 4b9e425c25f84.
> [pull from ssh://master.ker
* Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which
> > i've put into x86.git, you can pull it from:
>
> Looks ok for powerpc so far, I haven't gotten through all defconfigs
> yet but the first ones that failed before build now. p
Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git, ia64
>> buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont know
>> whether it boots ...)
>
> Uni-processor build still fails with this patch (config is
> arch/ia64/configs/tiger_defconfig
> with
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:49:20PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git,
> > > ia64 buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont
> > > know whether it boots ...)
> >
>
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uni-processor build still fails with this patch (config is
> > arch/ia64/configs/tiger_defconfig with CONFIG_SMP switched from =y
> > to =n).
>
> could you try the full patchset that Travis has just sent and which
> i've put into x86.git, you can p
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git,
> > ia64 buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont
> > know whether it boots ...)
>
> Uni-processor build still fails with this patch (config is
> arch/ia64/con
Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git, ia64
>> buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont know
>> whether it boots ...)
>
> Uni-processor build still fails with this patch (config is
> arch/ia64/configs/tiger_defconfig
> with
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:06:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > thanks! Sorry about that: we cross-built on ARM but not on SMP
> > > non-x86 platforms so this dependency/breakage went unnoticed.
> >
> > Yes ... all ia64 builds (UP and SMP) are br
> Could you check the patch below? With this applied to latest -git, ia64
> buils fine for me in a cross-compiling environment. (but i dont know
> whether it boots ...)
Uni-processor build still fails with this patch (config is
arch/ia64/configs/tiger_defconfig
with CONFIG_SMP switched from =y
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> thanks! Sorry about that: we cross-built on ARM but not on SMP
>>> non-x86 platforms so this dependency/breakage went unnoticed.
>> Yes ... all ia64 builds (UP and SMP) are broken at the moment. Please
>> Cc: me with the fixup pa
* Luck, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks! Sorry about that: we cross-built on ARM but not on SMP
> > non-x86 platforms so this dependency/breakage went unnoticed.
>
> Yes ... all ia64 builds (UP and SMP) are broken at the moment. Please
> Cc: me with the fixup patch.
Could you check
> > > This broke powerpc (and presumably ia64 and sparc64) in current
> > > linux-2.6.git:
> >
> > I'm generating a "fixup patch" right now...
>
> thanks! Sorry about that: we cross-built on ARM but not on SMP non-x86
> platforms so this dependency/breakage went unnoticed.
Yes ... all ia64 buil
* Mike Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This broke powerpc (and presumably ia64 and sparc64) in current
> > linux-2.6.git:
>
> I'm generating a "fixup patch" right now...
thanks! Sorry about that: we cross-built on ARM but not on SMP non-x86
platforms so this dependency/breakage went unn
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
>> Gitweb:
>> http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=dd5af90a7f3d79e04b7eace9a98644dbf2038f4d
>> Commit: dd5af90a7f3d79e04b7eace9a98644dbf2038f4d
>> Parent: 3212bf
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> Gitweb:
> http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=dd5af90a7f3d79e04b7eace9a98644dbf2038f4d
> Commit: dd5af90a7f3d79e04b7eace9a98644dbf2038f4d
> Parent: 3212bff370c2f22e4987c6679ba485654cefb1
35 matches
Mail list logo
