On Saturday 18 March 2006 01:55, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 17 March 2006 7:24 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Saturday 18 March 2006 01:12, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > I can reproduce the following in 2.6.16-rc5, User Mode Linux:
> > >
> > > kernel BUG at drivers/block/loop.c:621!
> > > Kernel pan
On Friday 17 March 2006 7:24 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Saturday 18 March 2006 01:12, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I can reproduce the following in 2.6.16-rc5, User Mode Linux:
> >
> > kernel BUG at drivers/block/loop.c:621!
> > Kernel panic - not syncing: BUG!
> >
> > EIP: 0073:[] CPU: 0 Not tainted E
On Saturday 18 March 2006 01:12, Rob Landley wrote:
> I can reproduce the following in 2.6.16-rc5, User Mode Linux:
>
> kernel BUG at drivers/block/loop.c:621!
> Kernel panic - not syncing: BUG!
>
> EIP: 0073:[] CPU: 0 Not tainted ESP: 007b:b7de1f9c EFLAGS:
> 00200246 Not tainted
> EAX: EB
I can reproduce the following in 2.6.16-rc5, User Mode Linux:
kernel BUG at drivers/block/loop.c:621!
Kernel panic - not syncing: BUG!
EIP: 0073:[] CPU: 0 Not tainted ESP: 007b:b7de1f9c EFLAGS: 00200246
Not tainted
EAX: EBX: 18be ECX: 0013 EDX: 18be
ESI: 18bb EDI: 000
Blaisorblade wrote:
> however usleep(3) exists since 4.3 BSD so this is a
> bit unlikely;
Oh, there must be a million of passably valid reasons why someone
may still do it this way, e.g.,
- because they don't know of the more suitable function
- because they don't trust the more suitable functi
On Friday 17 March 2006 22:27, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Blaisorblade wrote:
> > 1) I'll try to fix poll(2) to return -EINVAL. Dunno whether anyone will
> > say "no, the app is stupid, it deserves no error", but hope not (with
> > "try" I refer to this). Attached patch should do this.
>
> I think
Blaisorblade wrote:
> 1) I'll try to fix poll(2) to return -EINVAL. Dunno whether anyone will say
> "no, the app is stupid, it deserves no error", but hope not (with "try" I
> refer to this). Attached patch should do this.
I think the behaviour of "poll" with nfds = 0 is correct as it is.
At lea
On Friday 17 March 2006 19:57, Erik Paulson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On a CentOS 4.2 machine, I had the same failure that Bill Stearns had
> back in January in this message:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg
>02943.html
Ah, ok... here's why he posted that p
On Thursday 16 March 2006 15:22, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Having said that,
> > if you can get a stack from the hang, it might turn out to be an easily
> > diagnosed and fixed bug.
>
> Seems that arch/um/kernel/sigio_user.c:write_sigio_thread begins
> its poll before there a
Hello,
On a CentOS 4.2 machine, I had the same failure that Bill Stearns had
back in January in this message:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02943.html
(the failure:
arch/um/os-Linux/tls.c:48: error: syntax error before 'get_thread_area'
arch/um/os-
10 matches
Mail list logo