Can someone explain me that?
Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
dereference at virtual address
Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: printing eip:
Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: c0190182
Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: *pde = 1b62b001
Dec 12 00:24:15
On 12/12/2007 03:24 PM, Justin Banks wrote:
> Dave Young wrote
>> On Dec 12, 2007 5:17 PM, Oliver Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Can someone explain me that?
>>>
>>> Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
>>>
On 12/12/2007 03:55 PM, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote:
> Em Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:17:10 +0100
> Oliver Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>
> | Can someone explain me that?
> |
> | Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
> | der
>
> I'm so blind.
>
>>> It's really really old :)
>> No, it's actually less than 3 months old kernel from RHEL-4 or CentOS.
>
> Maybe, but the version number is old indeed.
>
> BTW, Oliver Falk , the problem seems caused by sysfs read
On 12/12/2007 10:56 AM, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 5:17 PM, Oliver Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can someone explain me that?
>>
>> Dec 12 00:24:15 santorini kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
>> dereference at virtual address
&g
Hi!
Can someone explain me, why we have different define's for WRLCK and
RDLCK within alpha kernel headers:
Alpha system:
asm/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK 1
asm-generic/fcntl.h:#ifndef F_RDLCK
asm-generic/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK 0
bits/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK1
Hi!
It seems somewhere in 2.6.23 -Werror has been added to
arch/alpha/kernel/Makefile.
That's bad, because of the following:
CC arch/alpha/kernel/sys_titan.o
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
arch/alpha/kernel/sys_titan.c: In function ‘titan_late_init’:
arch/alpha/kernel/sys_titan.c:2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe this is missing... :-) I hope I understood NR_SYSCALLS
correctly and it's the number of defined syscals - as I added 20 of
them, I increased it by 20... Maybe someone can have a look if it's correct.
- --- linux-2.6.21/include/asm-alpha/unis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2007 10:57 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> I believe this is missing... :-) I hope I understood NR_SYSCALLS
> correctly and it's the number of defined syscals - as I added 20 of
> them, I increased it by 20... Maybe someone can have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2007 11:41 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> On 05/16/2007 10:57 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> I believe this is missing... :-) I hope I understood NR_SYSCALLS
>> correctly and it's the number of defined syscals - as I added 20 of
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2007 01:19 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> On 05/16/2007 11:41 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 05/16/2007 10:57 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>> I believe this is missing... :-) I hope I understood NR_SYSCALLS
>>> correctly and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2007 03:10 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> On 05/16/2007 01:19 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 05/16/2007 11:41 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>> On 05/16/2007 10:57 AM, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>> I believe this is missing... :-) I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2007 09:38 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
arch/alpha/kernel/built-in.o:(.data+0x2d60): undefined reference to
`sys_pselect6'
arch/alpha/kernel/built-in.o:(.data+0x2d68): undefined reference to
`sys_ppoll'
I don't understand
Hi!
We have a discussion on alpha mailinglist at the moment, because of
uname -mpi.
AFAIK, uname -m should do some glibc call, which calls kernel, right?
However, I have two machines:
AS1000A:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# uname -mpi && cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model
alpha alpha alpha
cpu model
Hi Eric!
On 03/19/2007 06:44 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Oliver Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ ... ]
The kernel uname function at least does not have fields that
report processor or hardware platform.
But on i386 it reports:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -mpi
i686 i686 i386
Tested and it works fine!
Thx Richard!
-of
Richard Henderson schrieb:
> Recent build changes have added a PT_NOTE entry to the kernel's
> ELF header. A perfectly valid change, but Alpha's aboot loader
> is none too bright about examining these headers.
>
> The following patch to aboot-1.0_pre2
Hi!
At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
* glibc 2.6.90 compiled with 2.6.23 headers
Oliver Falk schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
>
> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What hap
On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
>> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
>
> Why did your numbers differ from
On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Oliver!
>
>> ...
>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>> have patched it since a while now (
On 09/17/2007 11:15 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
>> Debian folks may speak up now!), I wou
On 09/18/2007 11:11 AM, Sergey Tikhonov wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a
On 09/18/2007 04:07 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:47:31AM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>> Hi Oliver!
>>>
&
23 matches
Mail list logo
