On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:33:39PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:18:07 -0800
>
> > How about this attempt?
>
> That works, thanks. Please push to Linus :-)
>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Great, thanks for testing, I
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:24:51PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:20:30 -0800
>
> > It's odd that the original one didn't also do that,
>
> In the old code it would vector through part_sysfs_ops (look at how it
> works before the changese
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:18:07 -0800
> How about this attempt?
That works, thanks. Please push to Linus :-)
Acked-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMA
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:20:30 -0800
> It's odd that the original one didn't also do that,
In the old code it would vector through part_sysfs_ops (look at how it
works before the changeset), which returns 0 if the attribute lacked a
->show method.
--
To unsubscr
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:11:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:00:44 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
> > >
> >
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:11:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:00:44 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
> > >
> >
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:00:44 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > I f
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I found the problem, it's the "whole_disk" partition attribute.
> >
> > I don't unders
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I found the problem, it's the "whole_disk" partition attribute.
> >
> > I don't unders
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:44:07 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:47:38 -0800
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > I r
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:42:10 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > I found the problem, it's the "whole_disk" partition attribute.
>
> I don't understand that code at all, on 2.6.24, what does reading that
> file give you? A
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:47:38 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I redid the bisect to make sure it absolutely was that specific
> > > changeset, and it
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:38:03 -0800
> I'm guessing that you have a partition that is the whole disk? That
> would make sense why I and most others haven't seen this yet.
It's an attribute used by Sun disk labels, usually it's the
third partition.
--
To unsubsc
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:47:38 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I redid the bisect to make sure it absolutely was that specific
> > > changeset, and it
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:47:38 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I redid the bisect to make sure it absolutely was that specific
> > > changeset, and it
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:47:38 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > I redid the bisect to make sure it absolutely was that specific
> > changeset, and it is.
>
> Thanks for doing that, I'll let you know when I have a patch to
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> Greg, I'm pretty sure I know what's happening.
>
> For whatever reason we're invoking dev_attr_show() on attribute_group
> objects.
Ugh, that makes sense.
> The reason it probably only crashes on sparc64 is because perhaps at
> t
Greg, I'm pretty sure I know what's happening.
For whatever reason we're invoking dev_attr_show() on attribute_group
objects.
The reason it probably only crashes on sparc64 is because perhaps at
that dev_attr->show offset on x86 there are zero bytes there instead
of a pointer, so the NULL check
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:09:59 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:02:31PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:59:02 -0800
> >
> > > What block drivers are you using for sparc? Scsi? Or something else?
>
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:02:31PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:59:02 -0800
>
> > What block drivers are you using for sparc? Scsi? Or something else?
> > What could make sparc64 different from x86 in regards to block device
> > struct
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:57:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > How is it working for anyone else then? sparc64 isn't doing anything
> > "odd" with it's block devices, is it?
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure the following changeset is to blame:
> > >
> > > commit edfaa7c36574f1bf09c65ad602412db9da5f
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:59:02 -0800
> What block drivers are you using for sparc? Scsi? Or something else?
> What could make sparc64 different from x86 in regards to block device
> structure, odd...
Only Fusion SAS on this system, therefore scsi.
--
To unsubsc
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:37:14PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:31:17 -0800
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:26:39PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure the following changeset is to blame:
> > >
> > > commit edfaa7c36574f1
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:31:17 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:26:39PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > I get the following OOPS from udevd during bootup on
> > sparc64:
> >
> > [0.982046] \|/ \|/
> > [0.982054] "@'/ .
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:37:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:31:17 -0800
>
> > Do you have CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=Y or N?
>
> I have SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y
I tested with SYSFS_DEPRECATED disabled, it made no
diffe
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:31:17 -0800
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:26:39PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure the following changeset is to blame:
> >
> > commit edfaa7c36574f1bf09c65ad602412db9da5f96bf
> > Author: Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > D
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:26:39PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> I get the following OOPS from udevd during bootup on
> sparc64:
>
> [0.982046] \|/ \|/
> [0.982054] "@'/ .. \`@"
> [0.982058] /_| \__/ |_\
> [0.982063]
I get the following OOPS from udevd during bootup on
sparc64:
[0.982046] \|/ \|/
[0.982054] "@'/ .. \`@"
[0.982058] /_| \__/ |_\
[0.982063] \__U_/
[0.982482] udevd(1305): Kernel illegal instruction [#1]
[0.982
28 matches
Mail list logo
