On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that there needed
> > to be some discussion about exactly which compiler versions are
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that there needed
to be some discussion about exactly which compiler versions are affected.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that there
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:25:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that there needed
> to be some discussion about exactly which compiler versions are affected.
> It seems that it's not as trivial as looking at the GCC bug entry.
...
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 04:06:40AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I think the only viable solution here is that:
> >
> > 1. We blacklist the bad compiler versions outright in the kernel.
>
> Yes, please do this, it's what we
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 04:06:40AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I think the only viable solution here is that:
1. We blacklist the bad compiler versions outright in the kernel.
Yes, please do this, it's what we have done
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
As I said, I have a patch in progress, but it seems that there needed
to be some discussion about exactly which compiler versions are affected.
It seems that it's not as trivial as looking at the GCC bug entry.
... and
On 10/13/2014 10:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Nathan Lynch
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> Right, so GCC
On 10/13/2014 10:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
From: Nathan Lynch
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Nathan Lynch
> > > On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Nathan Lynch
> > On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
> > > it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
> >
> >
From: Nathan Lynch
> On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
> > it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
>
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x for x < 3
>
From: Nathan Lynch
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x for x 3
are affected,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
From: Nathan Lynch
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
From: Nathan Lynch
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
On 10/10/2014 08:44 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>> Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
>> it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
>
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that
On 10/11/2014 10:51 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Russell,
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM,
Hello Russell,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> > On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Right, so GCC
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
> > > it seems that this has
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > We can blacklist these GCC versions quite easily. We already have GCC
> > 3.3 blacklisted, and it's trivial to add others. I would want to include
> > some proper details
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
We can blacklist these GCC versions quite easily. We already have GCC
3.3 blacklisted, and it's trivial to add others. I would want to include
some proper details about
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known
Hello Russell,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On 10/11/2014 10:51 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello Russell,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:54:32AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014
On 10/10/2014 08:44 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
> > it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
>
> Looking at
On 10/10/2014 09:44 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>> Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
>> it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
>
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
> it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x for x < 3
are affected, as well as 4.9.0.
>
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:47:06AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > What GCC version are you using?
> > >
> > > 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:57:43AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 09,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:47:06AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > What GCC version are you using?
> >
> > 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to miscompile the ARM kernel and these
> > find_get_entry() crashes with
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > alright, it's pretty
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
alright, it's pretty
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:47:06AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
What GCC version are you using?
4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to miscompile the ARM kernel and these
find_get_entry() crashes with 0x involved
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:57:43AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:47:06AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
What GCC version are you using?
4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to miscompile the ARM
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x for x 3
are affected, as well as 4.9.0.
We
On 10/10/2014 09:44 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it seems that all 4.8.x
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On 10/10/2014 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Right, so GCC 4.8.{1,2} are totally unsuitable for kernel building (and
it seems that this has been known about for some time.)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR58854 it
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> What GCC version are you using?
>
> 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to miscompile the ARM kernel and these
> find_get_entry() crashes with 0x involved smell a lot like the
> earlier reports from kernels build with
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
> > > matter which USB
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
> > matter which USB controller, no matter if backing store is RAM or MMC.
> >
> > Those
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
> matter which USB controller, no matter if backing store is RAM or MMC.
>
> Those two undefined instructions on the disassembly caught my attention,
> perhaps
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > I'm thinking it's not the slot pointer itself that's bad, because
> > __radix_tree_lookup() dereferences that to test if it's populated
> > before returning it, and slot life-time is guaranteed by RCU.
> >
> > That would only
Hi Johannes,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:01:38PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Finally bisected it down to commit 139e561660fe11e0fc35e142a800df3dd7d03e9d
> > (lib: radix_tree: tree node interface). Here's full bisect log:
> >
>
Hi Felipe,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Finally bisected it down to commit 139e561660fe11e0fc35e142a800df3dd7d03e9d
> (lib: radix_tree: tree node interface). Here's full bisect log:
>
> git bisect start
> # good: [455c6fdbd219161bd09b1165f11699d6d73de11c] Linux
Hi Felipe,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Finally bisected it down to commit 139e561660fe11e0fc35e142a800df3dd7d03e9d
(lib: radix_tree: tree node interface). Here's full bisect log:
git bisect start
# good: [455c6fdbd219161bd09b1165f11699d6d73de11c] Linux 3.14
Hi Johannes,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:01:38PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Finally bisected it down to commit 139e561660fe11e0fc35e142a800df3dd7d03e9d
(lib: radix_tree: tree node interface). Here's full bisect log:
git
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
I'm thinking it's not the slot pointer itself that's bad, because
__radix_tree_lookup() dereferences that to test if it's populated
before returning it, and slot life-time is guaranteed by RCU.
That would only leave
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
matter which USB controller, no matter if backing store is RAM or MMC.
Those two undefined instructions on the disassembly caught my attention,
perhaps I'm
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
matter which USB controller, no matter if backing store is RAM or MMC.
Those two
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:26:56AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
alright, it's pretty deterministic however. Always on the same test, no
matter which USB
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:01PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:
What GCC version are you using?
4.8.1 and 4.8.2 are known to miscompile the ARM kernel and these
find_get_entry() crashes with 0x involved smell a lot like the
earlier reports from kernels build with those
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:57:07PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
[ snip ]
> > > > It seems to be a difficult-to-reproduce race though. On a second boot it
> > > > didn't die during boot, but died with my USB test case. Unfortunately,
> > > > the platform I'm using is pretty new and only goes
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:13:22PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:32:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > On
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:32:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:32:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04,
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:13:22PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:32:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:57:07PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
[ snip ]
It seems to be a difficult-to-reproduce race though. On a second boot it
didn't die during boot, but died with my USB test case. Unfortunately,
the platform I'm using is pretty new and only goes as far back
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> >
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:04:03PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I keep
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
> > storage gadget driver:
>
> v3.17-rc3, correct?
yup, as in subject ;-)
>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
> storage gadget driver:
v3.17-rc3, correct?
I take it that the test passes on some earlier version?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
storage gadget driver:
v3.17-rc3, correct?
I take it that the test passes on some earlier version?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
storage gadget driver:
v3.17-rc3, correct?
yup, as in subject ;-)
I take it
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I keep triggering the following Oops with -rc3 when writing to the mass
storage
70 matches
Mail list logo