On Tuesday 22 December 2009 23:30:26 Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Is there a particular reason why you're wedded to the 2.6.29 kernel?
I think that is the newest kernel the latest RTAI stable release supports.
--
Greetings, Michael.
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 23:09:41 Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 December 2009 16:38:35 Jeff Epler wrote:
> > This is just a shot in the dark, but it seems to match several things
> > I'm seeing in the tracebacks -- SMP, x86-64, preempt, and irqs:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.li
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:09:41PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> What kernel do these patches apply to?
2.6.31, I think, based on the messages themselves.
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Commun
Michael Buesch wrote:
>On Tuesday 22 December 2009 16:38:35 Jeff Epler wrote:
>
>
>>This is just a shot in the dark, but it seems to match several things
>>I'm seeing in the tracebacks -- SMP, x86-64, preempt, and irqs:
>>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.adeos.general/1481
>>h
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 16:38:35 Jeff Epler wrote:
> This is just a shot in the dark, but it seems to match several things
> I'm seeing in the tracebacks -- SMP, x86-64, preempt, and irqs:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.adeos.general/1481
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 16:53:58 Chris Radek wrote:
> You are right that the first one is real,
Yeah I reproduced it twice with almost identical results (except the followup
oopses. Which
is why I think we can ignore these).
> and it is obviously an emc process.
Well, no. That is coincidenc
This is just a shot in the dark, but it seems to match several things
I'm seeing in the tracebacks -- SMP, x86-64, preempt, and irqs:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.adeos.general/1481
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.adeos.general/1487
http://article.gmane.org/gm
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 15:53:27 Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Just to be very clear here - does this mean that you compiled emc 2.3.3
> from source against your SMP kernel?
emc-2.3.4
> One thing I noticed is that the GeForce driver is explicitly mentioned
> or implicit on basically every o
Michael Buesch wrote:
>On Tuesday 22 December 2009 15:21:04 Chris Radek wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:51:31AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here's an interesting crash.
>>>It sometimes happens on EMC load. It's more or less reproducible by fireing
>>>up
>>>and shutting dow
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 15:32:33 Michael Buesch wrote:
> And 4 of the 5 oopses obviously are followup-oopses to the first one.
Also notice that the first oops happens in interrupt context, so "comm" is
meaningless.
--
Greetings, Michael.
On Tuesday 22 December 2009 15:21:04 Chris Radek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:51:31AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Here's an interesting crash.
> > It sometimes happens on EMC load. It's more or less reproducible by fireing
> > up
> > and shutting down EMC in a row. Something like 20 or
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:51:31AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Here's an interesting crash.
> It sometimes happens on EMC load. It's more or less reproducible by fireing up
> and shutting down EMC in a row. Something like 20 or 30 tries are sometimes
> required to reproduce.
>
> So, what is th
12 matches
Mail list logo
