Re: Register corruption --patch

[Jacek Kawa]

Richard B. Johnson wrote

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Jacek Kawa wrote:
> >Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >>This 'C' compiler destroys parameters passed to functions
> >>even though the code does not alter that parameter.
[...]
> >>I have been having trouble with mysterious things like:
> >[...]
> >>(4) Data errors in email.
> >>(5) Network connections failing to go away `netstat -c` shows
> >>hundreds of lines of very old history.
> >>... etc.
> >
> >Having troubles with some strange (and -as it seems- temporary)
> >data corruptions here[*], I was wondering, whether would it be
> >posiible to easily diagnose this somehow?
> >
> >[*] like diff running serval times over same two files can
> >   only once in a while show one character altered
[...]
> If the corruption goes away, you've either fixed the problem
> or have changed the size of something so that something that
> was getting trashed before by some completely-unrelated code,
> is now able to survive.

In a way patch helped to track down the error: while compiling 
new kernel[*] I was hit by SEGFAULT, so I ran memtest.... 
Well, it's not new RAM, so it goes away now, and I will give 
a plain 2.6.9 next try.

[*] I compiled -rc4 and -final (well, even twice) not so long
    ago and everythig was fine those days. :/

> Without some specific OOPS, some code to trace, it's just
> a crap game. But, the semaphore patch can't hurt anything.

Thanks for explanation. I will apply workaround in case
of 'mysterious' corruption reappear.

BTW, could it be, that CONFIG_REGPARM makes problem visible with
     your compiler (somehow)?

-- 
Jacek Kawa   **So, logically...  If she weighs the same as a duck,
            she's made of wood. And therefore-? A witch! A witch!**
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/