Alle 22:51, mercoled=EC 7 luglio 2004, Frank Sorenson ha scritto:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> > I've started working also on UML/2.4.
> > Today I've split the changes between 2.4.24-1um and 2.4.24-2um into
> > several patches; the HUMFS ones are carefully split out, but I've
> > separated even the others. Now I need testers. Lots of people cannot use
> > UML patches later than 2.4.24-1um, since they contain a lot of Hostfs
> > bugs and some stability issues. Now, if you use just some patches, you'=
> > avoid the bugs in the other.
> > You should apply surely the first 3 patches, IMHO; the other ones should
> > not hurt; inside txt/ there is a description of them.
> Thank you for splitting these patches out. Using them, I was able to
> track down and squash a kernel panic issue I've had with all 2.4 patch
> versions after 2.4.24-1um!
> My panic, for reference -
> In this case, the problem was actualy in the first 'mini-changes' patch,
> and the fix (diff to the 2.4.24-2um patch):
> --- uml-patch-2.4.24-2 2004-04-07 14:31:13.000000000 -0600
> +++ uml-patch-2.4.24-2_frank 2004-07-07 14:26:49.000000000 -0600
> @@ -35588,7 +35588,7 @@
> +ARCH_CFLAGS =3D -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -U$(SUBARCH)
> -+ifeq ($(CONFIG_GPROF),n)
> ++ifneq ($(CONFIG_GPROF),y)
> +ARCH_CFLAGS +=3D -DUM_FASTCALL
> The configuration program will either set CONFIG_GPROF to 'y', or it will
> put "# CONFIG_GPROF is not set" into the .config file. CONFIG_GPROF will
> never be 'n', at least in my understanding.
Yes, you are right. Compliments for that - I would have never seen such a=20
panic (I understand you perfectly, but I missed it and would have missed it=
again). So thanks a lot for helping with it - I'll save that for when I'm=20
back (I'm leaving now, so have no time at all to do anything). Your catch a=
means that UML will break without -DUM_FASTCALL, which is not nice: the bug=
change you see has actually uncovered some other bug; if it weren't so, the=
bug you have fixed would only have hurted performance.
> I believe this bug may affect stability for a number of people, and it has
> existed since 2.4.24-2um first came out. It may not solve any underlying
> problems, but I'd like to hear if it helps anyone else.
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729