On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> On 07/09/11 16:56, Dale wrote: >> >>> >>> No worries. Sometimes when you back up a bit, you may realize you >>> missed something. I did run memtest and it bad about 45 passes I think >>> with no errors. That takes a while when you have 16Gbs. o_O >>> >> >> Ah, ok. I'd also try a hard drive scan to make sure firefox's stuff >> isn't sitting on bad sectors. >> >> Applications shouldn't be able to cause a kernel panic, period. So if it >> isn't hardware, it's a kernel bug by definition. >> >> > > I'm going to try having a fresh .mozilla directory as soon as I can. I'm > sort of enjoying having KDE right now. ;-) > > I don't think it is the hard drive. I did a fresh install on a spare drive > with the same results. so, I'm beginning to think it is a kernel bug but > the thing is, I have tried several versions of that too. > > Basically, this is plain confusing. I can't see how Firefox, or something > it has to access, can cause a kernel panic. Thing is, I can't think of > anything else that could be the problem but trying different versions of a > kernel makes me think it is not the kernel either. > > < sighs > > > Dale
And this is exactly why you should consider posting any information your can find on LKML to let the heavy weight guys figure it out. As I said earlier, I believe they will take you quite seriously. In general I would also say that Firefox should be able to cause a kernel panic, and since it is I know the kernel developers are going to be interested in what's the root cause. I don't remember from earlier why you said it was a kernel panic, but clearly it must be. How are you determining this? Do you have info in a terminal? For a few problems I've had I've posted digital photos I've taken and uploaded to FlickR. You might consider doing something similar. Cheers, Mark
