2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-22 Thread Dominik Brodowski
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > > wrote: > > > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory.

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-22 Thread Dominik Brodowski
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > > wrote: > > > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory.

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-20 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > Thanks. It helped a bit. > I'll send two patches in response to this message, one of which fixes this > bug. Those patches fixed my system. Thanks!

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-20 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > Thanks. It helped a bit. > I'll send two patches in response to this message, one of which fixes this > bug. Those patches fixed my system. Thanks! ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@li

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-20 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 23:47 +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > > wrote: > > > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. > > >

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-19 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > wrote: > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. > > Enabling DEBUG_PAGEALLOC *might* show where it happens. > > > > > [ ? ?6

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-19 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 23:47 +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > > wrote: > > > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. > > >

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-19 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:27:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz > wrote: > > > > It's some nasty corruption: > > Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. > > Enabling DEBUG_PAGEALLOC *might* show where it happens. > > > > > [    6

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 06:49:20PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:24:27PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > It's some nasty corruption: Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. Enabling DEBUG_PAGEALLOC *might* show where it happens. > > [    6.523867] > ==

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > It's some nasty corruption: Looks like something wrote 0x to free'd memory. Enabling DEBUG_PAGEALLOC *might* show where it happens. > > [ ? ?6.523867] > ==

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau(?) regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 06:49:20PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:24:27PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-18 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dom

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Dominik Brodowski
Hey, On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > >>> Thought about CCing Linus to show h

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:24:27PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
[Repost with different Nick Piggin's address.] On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > >

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marci

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dom

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Dominik Brodowski
Hey, On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > >>> Thought about CCing Linus to show h

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:24:27PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:57PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
[Repost with different Nick Piggin's address.] On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > >

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Kyle Spaans wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marci

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: >>> Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" >>> to everyone, but then chose to CC Ma

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-17 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: >>> Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" >>> to everyone, but then chose to CC Ma

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-16 Thread Kyle Spaans
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On 15/04/11 16:11, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > >>> Thought about CCing Linus to show him tha

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-15 Thread Dominik Brodowski
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" > > to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and > > add this

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-14 Thread Dominik Brodowski
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:02:01PM +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" > > to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and > > add this

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-14 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" > to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and > add this to your regression list? Thanks! > > Since commit 38f1cff > > From

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-14 Thread Dominik Brodowski
Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and add this to your regression list? Thanks! Since commit 38f1cff From: Dave Airlie Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:34:41 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Mer

Re: 2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-14 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" > to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and > add this to your regression list? Thanks! > > Since commit 38f1cff > > From

2.6.39-rc1 nouveau regression (bisected)

2011-04-14 Thread Dominik Brodowski
Thought about CCing Linus to show him that 2.6.39-rcX isn't as "calm" to everyone, but then chose to CC Maciej instead: Would you be so kind and add this to your regression list? Thanks! Since commit 38f1cff From: Dave Airlie Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:34:41 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Mer