> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fd00
...
> >>PC; f01a77ac<=
Basically the first thing we tried to map in (the auxio register) failed.
Sounds like the page tables weren't set up properly. It is surely my
fault, I'll try and find out why.
Anton
-
To uns
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> > the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> > protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> > any future use of spinl
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:08:39AM +0100, Rafal Maszkowski wrote:
> > > SPARCstation 10, 1 CPU, Fore 200e SBA, 64 MB RAM
> > > gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)
> > > Linux etest.icm.edu.pl 2.2.17 #1 Fri Oct 27 03:43:05 MEST 2000 sparc unknown
> I will try to analize t
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> > the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> > protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> > any
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:06:52PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:27:47PM +0100, Rafal Maszkowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:52:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > - pre2:
> > > - David Miller: sparc64 updates, make sparc32 boot again
> > Thanks for worki
George Anzinger wrote:
>
> The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could ha
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:27:47PM +0100, Rafal Maszkowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:52:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > - pre2:
> > - David Miller: sparc64 updates, make sparc32 boot again
>
> Thanks for working on it but I am getting still:
>
> boot: 11.2
> Uncompressing im
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:52:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> - pre2:
> - David Miller: sparc64 updates, make sparc32 boot again
Thanks for working on it but I am getting still:
boot: 11.2
Uncompressing image...
PROMLIB: obio_ranges 5
bootmem_init: Scan sp_banks, init_bootmem(spfn[1f5]
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:15:54 -0800,
George Anzinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
>the face of it, way off.
Normally it would be, but these are NMI and panic messages. The system
is pretty dead at that point, getting the messag
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
trouble with this, pri
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:10:40AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >> - David Miller: sparc64 updates, make sparc32 boot again
> >> - Davdi Millner: spel "synchronous" correctly
> >Spell "David Miller" correctly. 8).
>
> I believe that was a
Blah. Puke. Ug. Not your changes, Bart... which are ok, but
incomplete.
Here is the complete bugfix. There are two places where error
conditions are not fully handled, and 'out_spin' can kfree(image),
saving some code. The worst bug of the list... if the firmware
copy_from_user failed w
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > rrunner.c : In function 'rr_ioctl'
> > rrunner.c:1558: label 'out' used but not defined
> > make[2]: *** [rrunner.o] Error 1
>
> My fault. Swap that 1158 line pair
>
> error = -EPERM;
> goto out;
>
> with
> ret
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>> - David Miller: sparc64 updates, make sparc32 boot again
>> - Davdi Millner: spel "synchronous" correctly
>Spell "David Miller" correctly. 8).
I believe that was a taste of Linus's good sense of humor there
Jeff. ;o) I got a good kick out o
John Kacur wrote:
>
> When attempting to compile test11-pre2, I get the following compile
> error.
>
> arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
> arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x781): undefined reference to `bust_spinlocks'
> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
It was inside an ifdef. Apologies.
Thi
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:32:49 -0500,
John Kacur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When attempting to compile test11-pre2, I get the following compile
>error.
>
>arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
>arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x781): undefined reference to `bust_spinlocks'
>make: *** [vmlinux] E
Keith Owens wrote:
> Index: 0-test11-pre2.1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> --- 0-test11-pre2.1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:10:37 +1100 kaos
>(linux-2.4/A/c/1_traps.c 1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.2.3.1.2.3.1.1.2 644)
> +++ 0-test11-pre2.1(w)/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:56:54 +1100
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:32:49 -0500,
John Kacur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When attempting to compile test11-pre2, I get the following compile
>error.
>
>arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
>arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x781): undefined reference to `bust_spinlocks'
>make: *** [vmlinux] E
> rrunner.c : In function 'rr_ioctl'
> rrunner.c:1558: label 'out' used but not defined
> make[2]: *** [rrunner.o] Error 1
My fault. Swap that 1158 line pair
error = -EPERM;
goto out;
with
return -EPERM
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Nothing stands out as affecting most people here. Security fix for /proc,
> and various cleanups. Alpha and sparc fixes. If you use RAID or ramdisk,
> upgrade.
>
> Linus
>
Only four level I's. Pretty good. PCMCIA problems fixed too.
Jeff
> --
20 matches
Mail list logo
