Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-25 Thread Torsten Kaiser
Sorry for the *really* late answer, but I did not have any time to do linux things the last weeks. :-( On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 AM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:03:42 +0100 > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Ja

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-06 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 6, 2008 2:33 PM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:35:35 +0100 > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2008 12:23 PM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 Jan 2

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-06 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 6, 2008 12:23 PM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:41:10 +0100 > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I will applie your patch and see if this hunk from > > find_next_zero_area() makes a difference: > &g

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-06 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 6, 2008 4:28 AM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:25:24 -0800 > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:10:17 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-06 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 6, 2008 9:27 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:52:32PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > ... > > So my personal conclusion would be, that someone is writing to memory > > that he no longer owns. Most probably 0-bytes. (the

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-05 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 5, 2008 11:10 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2.6.24-rc6 + mm-patches up to git.battery (includes git-net and > git-netdev-all) worked for 110 packages, then I proclaimed it good. > 2.6.24-rc6 + mm-patches up to (including) git.nfsd is currently > getting

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-05 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 5, 2008 3:52 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2008 11:13 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 2008 1:07 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROT

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-05 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 5, 2008 1:07 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 04:21:26PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2008 2:30 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only thing that is sadly not practical is bisecting the b

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-04 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 4, 2008 4:21 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 2:30 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - above git-nfsd and git-net tests should be probably repeated with > > -rc6-mm1 git versions: so vanilla rc6 plus both these -mm p

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-04 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 4, 2008 2:30 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04-01-2008 11:23, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008 10:51 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > >>>

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-04 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 2, 2008 10:51 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > Vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 seems stable. I did not see any crash or warnings. > > OK that's great. The next step would be to try exclud

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-03 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > The two specific trees of interest would be git-nfsd and git-net. > > Also, if it's git-nfsd, it'd be useful to test with the current git-nfsd > from the for-mm bran

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-02 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > > > Vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 seems stable. I did not see any cra

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-02 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In any case, I suspect the cause of your problem is that somebody > somewhere is doing a double-free on an skb. > > Since you're the only person who can reproduce this, we really need > your help to track this down. Since bisecting th

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-01 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 1, 2008 1:59 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > > > I then tried to "fix" it with this susp

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2008-01-01 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > I then tried to "fix" it with this suspect. > > I changed "skb_release_all(dst);" back to "skb_relea

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 AM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > > > > > The cause, why I am resending this:

Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 31, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 31 December 2007 17:38:03 Alan Cox wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100 > > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > a) this could be disabl

Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 31, 2007 5:01 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero. > > Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto > > banning external modules? > > It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using

Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 31, 2007 4:59 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 31 December 2007 16:55:57 Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted > > EXPORT_SYMBOL's: > > Shouldn't it be possible to garbage

Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 31, 2007 3:42 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With CONFIG_MODULES=y the 13 EXPORT_SYMBOL's that only exist for the > theoretical possibility of CONIG_UNIX=m waste a few hundred bytes > of memory. One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted EXPORT_SYMBOL's:

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2007-12-31 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 30, 2007 10:35 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Tom Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:07:17 -0600 > > > > Bruce/Aime: > &g

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2007-12-30 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2007-12-29 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > > > > > The cause, why I am resending this: I just got a crash with > > > > 2.6.24-rc6-mm1, again looking network related: >

Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1

2007-12-29 Thread Torsten Kaiser
On Dec 29, 2007 12:07 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > [ 7620.708561] Pid: 5698,