On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 13:04 +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> issue solved for the UML, tested linux-v3.0-7347-g288d5ab whcih works fine.
>
> BTW is there a special commit id dealing with this bug or was it solved as a
> side effect of another commit ?
The oops is fixed by 298507d4d2cff2248e84afc
issue solved for the UML, tested linux-v3.0-7347-g288d5ab whcih works fine.
BTW is there a special commit id dealing with this bug or was it solved as a
side effect of another commit ?
Vasiliy Kulikov wrote at 19:24:52
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 19:19 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Here you go (s
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:10:42 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 18:01 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> It also breaks ARM (at least 11MPCore and Cortex A9).
>> The same workaround gets the kernel booting again.
>
> Can you please apply this patch and show the output?
> I suppos
On 01/08/11 18:32, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> Marc,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 21:24 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 19:19 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Here you go (sorry about the line wrapping, damned webmail...):
>>
>> Thank you! Now I see that the problem is rw_mutex
Marc,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 21:24 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 19:19 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Here you go (sorry about the line wrapping, damned webmail...):
>
> Thank you! Now I see that the problem is rw_mutex is not initialized:
>
> down_write(&shm_id
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 19:19 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Here you go (sorry about the line wrapping, damned webmail...):
Thank you! Now I see that the problem is rw_mutex is not initialized:
down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
void __sched __down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
On Montag 01 August 2011 19:10:42 Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 18:01 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > It also breaks ARM (at least 11MPCore and Cortex A9).
> > The same workaround gets the kernel booting again.
>
> Can you please apply this patch and show the output?
> I suppose
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 18:01 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> It also breaks ARM (at least 11MPCore and Cortex A9).
> The same workaround gets the kernel booting again.
Can you please apply this patch and show the output?
I suppose all numbers will be nonNULL and the last is NULL.
diff --git a/ipc/
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 15:41 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> 5774ed01 (shm: handle separate PID namespaces case)
> b34a6b1d (ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl)
> 4c677e2e (shm: optimize locking and ipc_namespace getting)
>
> broke UML on i386.
> It crashes while starting up by
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:49:11 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 15:41 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> 5774ed01 (shm: handle separate PID namespaces case)
>> b34a6b1d (ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl)
>> 4c677e2e (shm: optimize locking and ipc_namespa
Hi Vasiliy,
On Montag 01 August 2011 15:49:11 Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 15:41 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > 5774ed01 (shm: handle separate PID namespaces case)
> > b34a6b1d (ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl)
> > 4c677e2e (shm: optimize locking an
11 matches
Mail list logo
