Re: ac17 "kernel BUG at slab.c:1244!"
Gav wrote: > The first occurrence of this I didn't even notice until i checked my logs. I have seen the same here, once with ac13 and twice with ac15 so far. Completely standard hardware, PIII, 440BX motherboard, esssolo1. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: ac17 kernel BUG at slab.c:1244!
Gav wrote: The first occurrence of this I didn't even notice until i checked my logs. I have seen the same here, once with ac13 and twice with ac15 so far. Completely standard hardware, PIII, 440BX motherboard, esssolo1. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
BUG at slab.c:1244! 2.4.5-ac13
I tend to get these after a few days uptime. This one locked X hard, ping and ssh over net etc still worked ok. Pretty standard x86 PC hardware. kernel BUG at slab.c:1244! invalid operand: CPU:0 EIP:0010:[] EFLAGS: 00213082 eax: 001b ebx: cfffc768 ecx: c0217700 edx: 0002906e esi: c8a5b000 edi: c8a5b9aa ebp: 00012800 esp: ca2e7df8 ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018 Process X (pid: 11139, stackpage=ca2e7000) Stack: c01e5225 04dc ceac71b4 c0273fa0 0007 0002 c8a5b000 1000 0020 00203246 c01a4e86 0a1c 0007 c58a97a0 09e0 c01a4671 09e0 0007 ce146ad4 09e0 c01d34e0 c58a94b4 ca2e6000 Call Trace: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Code: 0f 0b 83 c4 08 8b 6b 10 f7 c5 00 04 00 00 74 53 b8 a5 c2 0f ksymoops 0.7c on i686 2.4.5-ac13. Options used -V (default) -k /proc/ksyms (default) -l /proc/modules (default) -o /lib/modules/2.4.5-ac13/ (default) -m /usr/src/linux/System.map (default) Warning: You did not tell me where to find symbol information. I will assume that the log matches the kernel and modules that are running right now and I'll use the default options above for symbol resolution. If the current kernel and/or modules do not match the log, you can get more accurate output by telling me the kernel version and where to find map, modules, ksyms etc. ksymoops -h explains the options. invalid operand: CPU:0 EIP:0010:[] Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386 EFLAGS: 00213082 eax: 001b ebx: cfffc768 ecx: c0217700 edx: 0002906e esi: c8a5b000 edi: c8a5b9aa ebp: 00012800 esp: ca2e7df8 ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018 Process X (pid: 11139, stackpage=ca2e7000) Stack: c01e5225 04dc ceac71b4 c0273fa0 0007 0002 c8a5b000 1000 0020 00203246 c01a4e86 0a1c 0007 c58a97a0 09e0 c01a4671 09e0 0007 ce146ad4 09e0 c01d34e0 c58a94b4 ca2e6000 Call Trace: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Code: 0f 0b 83 c4 08 8b 6b 10 f7 c5 00 04 00 00 74 53 b8 a5 c2 0f >>EIP; c012842f<= Trace; c01a4e86 Trace; c01a4671 Trace; c01d34e0 Trace; c01d35df Trace; c01d34e0 Trace; c01a233d Trace; c01d34e0 Trace; c01a265c Trace; c01a26de Trace; c0130c93 Trace; c0117e65 Trace; c0130df9 Trace; c0106b17 Trace; c010002b Code; c012842f <_EIP>: Code; c012842f<= 0: 0f 0b ud2a <= Code; c0128431 2: 83 c4 08 add$0x8,%esp Code; c0128434 5: 8b 6b 10 mov0x10(%ebx),%ebp Code; c0128437 8: f7 c5 00 04 00 00 test $0x400,%ebp Code; c012843d e: 74 53 je 63 <_EIP+0x63> c0128492 Code; c012843f 10: b8 a5 c2 0f 00mov$0xfc2a5,%eax 1 warning issued. Results may not be reliable.-- -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
BUG at slab.c:1244! 2.4.5-ac13
I tend to get these after a few days uptime. This one locked X hard, ping and ssh over net etc still worked ok. Pretty standard x86 PC hardware. kernel BUG at slab.c:1244! invalid operand: CPU:0 EIP:0010:[c012842f] EFLAGS: 00213082 eax: 001b ebx: cfffc768 ecx: c0217700 edx: 0002906e esi: c8a5b000 edi: c8a5b9aa ebp: 00012800 esp: ca2e7df8 ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018 Process X (pid: 11139, stackpage=ca2e7000) Stack: c01e5225 04dc ceac71b4 c0273fa0 0007 0002 c8a5b000 1000 0020 00203246 c01a4e86 0a1c 0007 c58a97a0 09e0 c01a4671 09e0 0007 ce146ad4 09e0 c01d34e0 c58a94b4 ca2e6000 Call Trace: [c01a4e86] [c01a4671] [c01d34e0] [c01d35df] [c01d34e0] [c01a233d] [c01d34e0] [c01a265c] [c01a26de] [c0130c93] [c0117e65] [c0130df9] [c0106b17] [c010002b] Code: 0f 0b 83 c4 08 8b 6b 10 f7 c5 00 04 00 00 74 53 b8 a5 c2 0f ksymoops 0.7c on i686 2.4.5-ac13. Options used -V (default) -k /proc/ksyms (default) -l /proc/modules (default) -o /lib/modules/2.4.5-ac13/ (default) -m /usr/src/linux/System.map (default) Warning: You did not tell me where to find symbol information. I will assume that the log matches the kernel and modules that are running right now and I'll use the default options above for symbol resolution. If the current kernel and/or modules do not match the log, you can get more accurate output by telling me the kernel version and where to find map, modules, ksyms etc. ksymoops -h explains the options. invalid operand: CPU:0 EIP:0010:[c012842f] Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386 EFLAGS: 00213082 eax: 001b ebx: cfffc768 ecx: c0217700 edx: 0002906e esi: c8a5b000 edi: c8a5b9aa ebp: 00012800 esp: ca2e7df8 ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018 Process X (pid: 11139, stackpage=ca2e7000) Stack: c01e5225 04dc ceac71b4 c0273fa0 0007 0002 c8a5b000 1000 0020 00203246 c01a4e86 0a1c 0007 c58a97a0 09e0 c01a4671 09e0 0007 ce146ad4 09e0 c01d34e0 c58a94b4 ca2e6000 Call Trace: [c01a4e86] [c01a4671] [c01d34e0] [c01d35df] [c01d34e0] [c01a233d] [c01d34e0] [c01a265c] [c01a26de] [c0130c93] [c0117e65] [c0130df9] [c0106b17] [c010002b] Code: 0f 0b 83 c4 08 8b 6b 10 f7 c5 00 04 00 00 74 53 b8 a5 c2 0f EIP; c012842f kmalloc+12f/1d8 = Trace; c01a4e86 alloc_skb+de/190 Trace; c01a4671 sock_alloc_send_skb+71/108 Trace; c01d34e0 unix_stream_sendmsg+0/2e0 Trace; c01d35df unix_stream_sendmsg+ff/2e0 Trace; c01d34e0 unix_stream_sendmsg+0/2e0 Trace; c01a233d sock_sendmsg+81/a4 Trace; c01d34e0 unix_stream_sendmsg+0/2e0 Trace; c01a265c sock_readv_writev+8c/98 Trace; c01a26de sock_writev+36/40 Trace; c0130c93 do_readv_writev+183/254 Trace; c0117e65 sys_gettimeofday+1d/94 Trace; c0130df9 sys_writev+41/54 Trace; c0106b17 system_call+33/38 Trace; c010002b startup_32+2b/a5 Code; c012842f kmalloc+12f/1d8 _EIP: Code; c012842f kmalloc+12f/1d8 = 0: 0f 0b ud2a = Code; c0128431 kmalloc+131/1d8 2: 83 c4 08 add$0x8,%esp Code; c0128434 kmalloc+134/1d8 5: 8b 6b 10 mov0x10(%ebx),%ebp Code; c0128437 kmalloc+137/1d8 8: f7 c5 00 04 00 00 test $0x400,%ebp Code; c012843d kmalloc+13d/1d8 e: 74 53 je 63 _EIP+0x63 c0128492 kmalloc+192/1d8 Code; c012843f kmalloc+13f/1d8 10: b8 a5 c2 0f 00mov$0xfc2a5,%eax 1 warning issued. Results may not be reliable.-- -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote: > Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having > source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked > solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching > to Open Source. > > > Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either > 1. Trying to make it sources open(in the long run) or > 2. As you said a "half - baked solution" > > But the article mentioned about the "earlier success with the pilot > program" , which made me feel that they may have more plans than making the > sources open for a few customers. Don't get me wrong. I think that making the source available is a step in the right direction. But MS' business model is very centered around controlling and protecting their operating system/platform. Ever since they gained an upper hand in the PC platform war, their agenda has been to protect Windows from any competing platforms. Think OS/2, Java, Netscape. There is also the fact that Windows source code has been available for a long time, both to universities and to ISVs that are developing software that requires deep hackery (Citrix, Bristol technology, etc). Which makes me believe that this "source available (under heavy license)" thing is mainly a marketing stunt to make MS look good. Today MS is a platform provider. Open Source is all about making the platform a commodity. A major business plan and culture rewiring has to happen inside MS before they can embrace Open Source, and I don't see that happening yet. I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, though. -- LarsG. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote: > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full > blown GPL > > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html I'm not so sure about that. It is going to be heavily NDA'ed and look-but-not-touch. Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching to Open Source. This also gives MS an opportunity to do PR. Expect some "We provide our customers with the good benefits of Open Source without the danger of fragmentation and market confusion" from their marketroids soon. Compare this to the release of W98SE. The main reason for SE was to stop home users being introduced to Linux because of ipmasq'ing. You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant of the market is not one of them. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote: Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full blown GPL http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html I'm not so sure about that. It is going to be heavily NDA'ed and look-but-not-touch. Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching to Open Source. This also gives MS an opportunity to do PR. Expect some "We provide our customers with the good benefits of Open Source without the danger of fragmentation and market confusion" from their marketroids soon. Compare this to the release of W98SE. The main reason for SE was to stop home users being introduced to Linux because of ipmasq'ing. You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant of the market is not one of them. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote: Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching to Open Source. Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either 1. Trying to make it sources open(in the long run) or 2. As you said a "half - baked solution" But the article mentioned about the "earlier success with the pilot program" , which made me feel that they may have more plans than making the sources open for a few customers. Don't get me wrong. I think that making the source available is a step in the right direction. But MS' business model is very centered around controlling and protecting their operating system/platform. Ever since they gained an upper hand in the PC platform war, their agenda has been to protect Windows from any competing platforms. Think OS/2, Java, Netscape. There is also the fact that Windows source code has been available for a long time, both to universities and to ISVs that are developing software that requires deep hackery (Citrix, Bristol technology, etc). Which makes me believe that this "source available (under heavy license)" thing is mainly a marketing stunt to make MS look good. Today MS is a platform provider. Open Source is all about making the platform a commodity. A major business plan and culture rewiring has to happen inside MS before they can embrace Open Source, and I don't see that happening yet. I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, though. -- LarsG. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: More on the VIA KT133 chipset misbehaving in Linux
Adrian Cox wrote: > > Dylan Griffiths wrote: > > The VIA KT133 chipset exhibits the following bugs under Linux 2.2.17 and > > 2.4.0: > > 1) PS/2 mouse cursor randomly jumps to upper right hand corner of screen and > > locks for a bit > > This happens to me about once a month on a BX chipset PII machine here, > and on a KT133 chipset machine I have. I have to hit ctrl-alt-backspace > to regain control of the console. I always assumed it was a bug in X, > but it never caused me enough trouble to actually make me pursue it. Useless datapoint: I've experienced the same a few times on an old Pentium computer. Mouse pointer jumps to upper right corner, and locks hard. Intel chipset, not sure if it is FX or HX. Matrox Mill2 graphics card. Kernel is 2.2.16-ish on a modified RH6.1. XFree 3.3.6. gpm is running. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: More on the VIA KT133 chipset misbehaving in Linux
Adrian Cox wrote: Dylan Griffiths wrote: The VIA KT133 chipset exhibits the following bugs under Linux 2.2.17 and 2.4.0: 1) PS/2 mouse cursor randomly jumps to upper right hand corner of screen and locks for a bit This happens to me about once a month on a BX chipset PII machine here, and on a KT133 chipset machine I have. I have to hit ctrl-alt-backspace to regain control of the console. I always assumed it was a bug in X, but it never caused me enough trouble to actually make me pursue it. Useless datapoint: I've experienced the same a few times on an old Pentium computer. Mouse pointer jumps to upper right corner, and locks hard. Intel chipset, not sure if it is FX or HX. Matrox Mill2 graphics card. Kernel is 2.2.16-ish on a modified RH6.1. XFree 3.3.6. gpm is running. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Off topic] UK patent office wants comments on software patent laws.
Off topic for lkml, I know. But since software patents could have a huge impact on open source, UK residents on this list should be aware that the UK patent office is currently asking for comments on changes to the patent law regarding software and business patents. >From their page: "Should Patents be Granted for Computer Software or Ways of Doing Business?" "We want to know what you think about this so that Government policy is evidence-based and relevant to business, commerce, and consumers - in other words to you. So, whether you are in the software industry, financial services, are a software user, a consumer, or are otherwise interested, we want to hear from you." http://www.patent.gov.uk/snews/notices/softcons.html news://discuss.patent.gov.uk/patentoffice.softpat -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Off topic] UK patent office wants comments on software patent laws.
Off topic for lkml, I know. But since software patents could have a huge impact on open source, UK residents on this list should be aware that the UK patent office is currently asking for comments on changes to the patent law regarding software and business patents. From their page: "Should Patents be Granted for Computer Software or Ways of Doing Business?" "We want to know what you think about this so that Government policy is evidence-based and relevant to business, commerce, and consumers - in other words to you. So, whether you are in the software industry, financial services, are a software user, a consumer, or are otherwise interested, we want to hear from you." http://www.patent.gov.uk/snews/notices/softcons.html news://discuss.patent.gov.uk/patentoffice.softpat -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Promise PDC20295 support?
Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > The motherboard in question is the Asus A7V. > > I have the same motherboard, and the chip is very well supported with kernel > 2.4, including ATA100. (thanks Andre!) I've doublechecked, and it is indeed the PDC20265 that is on the board. Sorry for the inconvenience (and a bunch of thanks to Andre for his work). -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Promise PDC20295 support?
Andre Hedrick wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Lars Gaarden wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Is anyone working on support for the Promise PDC20295 > > ATA100 chip? > > Are you sure it is not the PDC20265? The motherboard in question is the Asus A7V. The datasheet I have (from a tomshardware.com review) says 20295. The motherboard manual only says "Promise Ultra DMA/100". I have not bought the motherboard yet, so I can't check what is actually printed on the chip. -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Promise PDC20295 support?
Arjan van de Ven wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: The motherboard in question is the Asus A7V. I have the same motherboard, and the chip is very well supported with kernel 2.4, including ATA100. (thanks Andre!) I've doublechecked, and it is indeed the PDC20265 that is on the board. Sorry for the inconvenience (and a bunch of thanks to Andre for his work). -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Promise PDC20295 support?
Hi. Is anyone working on support for the Promise PDC20295 ATA100 chip? If not, does anyone know if specs are available from Promise? -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Promise PDC20295 support?
Hi. Is anyone working on support for the Promise PDC20295 ATA100 chip? If not, does anyone know if specs are available from Promise? -- LarsG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
