Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4: old SMP oops still happening"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Slow development cycle"
• In reply to: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Next in thread: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, May 27 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Jens you asked if I was right about the flags........
>
> BOOM we have a test point.........
>
> > >>EIP; c013c53c <blkdev_open+8c/110> <=====
> > Trace; c01336fa <dentry_open+aa/130>
> > Trace; d48c4040 <[ide-mod]__kstrtab_ide_spin_wait_hwgroup+0/0>
> > Trace; c0133669 <dentry_open+19/130>
>
> Now it is easy to undo the change to preserve the lock.....
> But why do we need it......is the real question...

This trace looks odd to me. Did the trap in ide_spin_wait_hwgroup I
told you to add ever trigger? The new code still looks 100% alright
to me.

-- 
*  Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
*  Linux CD/DVD-ROM, SuSE Labs
*  http://kernel.dk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4: old SMP oops still happening"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Slow development cycle"
• In reply to: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Next in thread: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: 2.4.0-test1-ac4 + IDE => ksymoops"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST