linux-apus-devel

Re: Debian Woody floppy images

[Michel <da...@io...>]

Sven LUTHER wrote:

> > I am also continuing to update from Debian CVS my own archive of the
> > software but i haven't seen yet added that two patches needed by APUS.
> > What do you think about ?
> 
> mmm, will have a look nextly, and commit the patches. Michel could do it
> also, if you send the diff to him.

I think it's better if you do it after a peer review here, I don't a
boot-floppies setup handy and wonder if I even have write access to the
repository?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project member

Re: Debian Woody floppy images

[Sven L. <lu...@dp...>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 09:49:44PM +0200, Giorgio Terzi wrote:
> Hello Michel,
> 
> i think you know that i am giving my collaboration to test 
> APUS Debian Woody boot floppies with the supervision of 
> Sven Luther.
> I think that now the tests are more than beta and i wish
> that this software could be tested also by other APUS 
> people that uses Debian.
> Note however that now this is still classified unstable.
> 1st) May i upload in some manner, somewhere in
>      Our SourceForce space this software, with the
>      needed notes and instructions ? 
> 2nd) I have seen in Debian package lists that 2.4.4
>      kernel .deb appeared but after a while quickly 
>      disappeared. (i however got my own copy... :))  
>     Why this?  
>      I had tested it with boot_floppies and all was fine:
>      The kernel package was correctly handled when MAKing 
>      boot floppies and also the root image loading was OK. 
>      The 2 driver's images that was created was loaded 
>      correctly and was very amazing to see the (very big) 
>      list of modules that was possible to configure! 

mmm, very nice, ...

> For Sven,
> 
> As you asked me i am going to upload, if approved,
> the boot images to SourceForge, these will be better 
> that the ones i have uploaded to you:
> they (what i have uploaded to you) had a problem in
> the borders visualization that now is fixed,
> and this copy will be with 2.4.4 ( unstable...) ;-).
> I have finished 3 little progs to extract, build, boot 
> and load the floppy disks (1.76M) with the 1.44M file
> images. Note the word boot. :-).
> I am refining these three and they will be added, 
> with instructions, in the tarball i shall upload.
> I shall also meet Alan Buxey: his program that creates
> the boothack strings is a very good idea and i wish
> to use it...
> I am also continuing to update from Debian CVS my 
> own archive of the software but i haven't seen yet 
> added that two patches needed by APUS.
> What do you think about ?

mmm, will have a look nextly, and commit the patches. Michel could do it also,
if you send the diff to him.

> Weather report.
> Now is evening.
> I am sweating and my 17' monitor's plastic is near to melt.  
> This is a sunny country... ;-) 
> I wish to know if someone is able to build a sweaty face:
> happy :-) , sad :-( , humour ;-) , but sweat ?
> :))

=) ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Debian Woody floppy images

[Sven L. <lu...@dp...>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:57:22PM +0200, Michel D=E4nzer wrote:
> Giorgio Terzi wrote:
>=20
> > i think you know that i am giving my collaboration to test
> > APUS Debian Woody boot floppies with the supervision of
> > Sven Luther.
> > I think that now the tests are more than beta and i wish
> > that this software could be tested also by other APUS
> > people that uses Debian.
> > Note however that now this is still classified unstable.
> > 1st) May i upload in some manner, somewhere in
> >      Our SourceForce space this software, with the
> >      needed notes and instructions ?
>=20
> Sure go ahead! I suggest /home/groups/l/li/linux-apus/htdocs/debian/,
> preserving the Debian directory hierarchy.
>=20
> > 2nd) I have seen in Debian package lists that 2.4.4
> >      kernel .deb appeared but after a while quickly
> >      disappeared. (i however got my own copy... :))
> >     Why this?
>=20
> Probably a misunderstanding of the FTP admins. The source package was c=
alled
> kernel-patch-2.4.4-apus and there was one binary package of the same na=
me (for
> the user to build his own kernels) and another one called
> kernel-image-2.4.4-apus . I got a grave bug against the binary
> kernel-patch-2.4.4-apus package because kernel-source-2.4.4, which it d=
epended
> on, was removed. I reassigned the bug to the ftp.debian.org virtual pac=
kage so
> that this package would get removed as well, but it seems all the packa=
ges
> have been removed now. :(
>=20
> Actually, I think the bug might have been against the source package in=
 the
> first place, that would mean I didn't look well enough, shame on me.
>=20
> Anyway, I'll do my best to make sure there will be up-to-date 2.4 kerne=
l
> packages for the woody release. Speaking of this, are there any imminen=
t
> changes for 2.4.5 or can I go about making packages?
>=20
>=20
> >      I had tested it with boot_floppies and all was fine:
> >      The kernel package was correctly handled when MAKing
> >      boot floppies and also the root image loading was OK.
>=20
> Seems the move to use kernel-package for building does pay off. BTW did=
 you
> also get questions about lilo when installing kernel-image-2.4.4-apus?

This should only happen if lilo is installed on the box, should it not ?

> >      The 2 driver's images that was created was loaded
> >      correctly and was very amazing to see the (very big)
> >      list of modules that was possible to configure!
>=20
> I think a lot of modules I build won't be used by anyone, especially on=
 the
> boot-floppies, but as we're not limited space-wise, who cares? :)

:)

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Debian Woody floppy images

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Hi,

"Michel Dänzer" wrote:

> Anyway, I'll do my best to make sure there will be up-to-date 2.4 kernel
> packages for the woody release. Speaking of this, are there any imminent
> changes for 2.4.5 or can I go about making packages?

I don't have anything right now. I can reproduce Ken's problem now, but
I'm still looking for the real cause...

bye, Roman

Re: Debian Woody floppy images

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Giorgio Terzi wrote:

> i think you know that i am giving my collaboration to test
> APUS Debian Woody boot floppies with the supervision of
> Sven Luther.
> I think that now the tests are more than beta and i wish
> that this software could be tested also by other APUS
> people that uses Debian.
> Note however that now this is still classified unstable.
> 1st) May i upload in some manner, somewhere in
>      Our SourceForce space this software, with the
>      needed notes and instructions ?

Sure go ahead! I suggest /home/groups/l/li/linux-apus/htdocs/debian/,
preserving the Debian directory hierarchy.

> 2nd) I have seen in Debian package lists that 2.4.4
>      kernel .deb appeared but after a while quickly
>      disappeared. (i however got my own copy... :))
>     Why this?

Probably a misunderstanding of the FTP admins. The source package was called
kernel-patch-2.4.4-apus and there was one binary package of the same name (for
the user to build his own kernels) and another one called
kernel-image-2.4.4-apus . I got a grave bug against the binary
kernel-patch-2.4.4-apus package because kernel-source-2.4.4, which it depended
on, was removed. I reassigned the bug to the ftp.debian.org virtual package so
that this package would get removed as well, but it seems all the packages
have been removed now. :(

Actually, I think the bug might have been against the source package in the
first place, that would mean I didn't look well enough, shame on me.

Anyway, I'll do my best to make sure there will be up-to-date 2.4 kernel
packages for the woody release. Speaking of this, are there any imminent
changes for 2.4.5 or can I go about making packages?


>      I had tested it with boot_floppies and all was fine:
>      The kernel package was correctly handled when MAKing
>      boot floppies and also the root image loading was OK.

Seems the move to use kernel-package for building does pay off. BTW did you
also get questions about lilo when installing kernel-image-2.4.4-apus?

>      The 2 driver's images that was created was loaded
>      correctly and was very amazing to see the (very big)
>      list of modules that was possible to configure!

I think a lot of modules I build won't be used by anyone, especially on the
boot-floppies, but as we're not limited space-wise, who cares? :)


> I am also continuing to update from Debian CVS my
> own archive of the software but i haven't seen yet
> added that two patches needed by APUS.

What patches?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project member

Debian Woody floppy images

[Giorgio T. <de...@ip...>]

Hello Michel,

i think you know that i am giving my collaboration to test 
APUS Debian Woody boot floppies with the supervision of 
Sven Luther.
I think that now the tests are more than beta and i wish
that this software could be tested also by other APUS 
people that uses Debian.
Note however that now this is still classified unstable.
1st) May i upload in some manner, somewhere in
     Our SourceForce space this software, with the
     needed notes and instructions ? 
2nd) I have seen in Debian package lists that 2.4.4
     kernel .deb appeared but after a while quickly 
     disappeared. (i however got my own copy... :))  
    Why this?  
     I had tested it with boot_floppies and all was fine:
     The kernel package was correctly handled when MAKing 
     boot floppies and also the root image loading was OK. 
     The 2 driver's images that was created was loaded 
     correctly and was very amazing to see the (very big) 
     list of modules that was possible to configure! 

For Sven,

As you asked me i am going to upload, if approved,
the boot images to SourceForge, these will be better 
that the ones i have uploaded to you:
they (what i have uploaded to you) had a problem in
the borders visualization that now is fixed,
and this copy will be with 2.4.4 ( unstable...) ;-).
I have finished 3 little progs to extract, build, boot 
and load the floppy disks (1.76M) with the 1.44M file
images. Note the word boot. :-).
I am refining these three and they will be added, 
with instructions, in the tarball i shall upload.
I shall also meet Alan Buxey: his program that creates
the boothack strings is a very good idea and i wish
to use it...
I am also continuing to update from Debian CVS my 
own archive of the software but i haven't seen yet 
added that two patches needed by APUS.
What do you think about ?

Weather report.
Now is evening.
I am sweating and my 17' monitor's plastic is near to melt.  
This is a sunny country... ;-) 
I wish to know if someone is able to build a sweaty face:
happy :-) , sad :-( , humour ;-) , but sweat ?
:))

Regards
-- 
                                                 Giorgio Terzi
                                                

Re: Kernel 2.4.5 - what to do now ?

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Roman Zippel wrote:

Hello,

> Ok, I'm going to play around with that, can you send me the kernel
> config you used?

Attached.

Thanks, ken.
  

Re: Kernel 2.4.5 - what to do now ?

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Hi,

Ken Tyler wrote:

> I'm also don't think it can be caused by hardware, either mem or cards
> because of the consitent failing at make -j 6, always at the same place.

Ok, I'm going to play around with that, can you send me the kernel
config you used?

bye, Roman

Re: Kernel 2.4.5 - what to do now ?

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michel D=E4nzer wrote:

> > Little swap space is used and there is about 2 meg of free mem still
> > available according to /proc/meminfo but that might not be right as I
> > can't be sure I'm seeing free mem at the instant it fails.
=20
> Have you tried without z2ram swap yet? Just a shot in the dark...

My minimal 2.4.5 kernel doesn't have support for ram swap, only using hd
for swap and not much of it is used.

I saw a different error yesterday, as well as the illegal instruction and
seqfault, I got a BPTrap error.

I'm also don't think it can be caused by hardware, either mem or cards
because of the consitent failing at make -j 6, always at the same place.

Ken.
=20

Re: Kernel 2.4.5 - what to do now ?

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Ken Tyler wrote:

> Little swap space is used and there is about 2 meg of free mem still
> available according to /proc/meminfo but that might not be right as I
> can't be sure I'm seeing free mem at the instant it fails.

Have you tried without z2ram swap yet? Just a shot in the dark...


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project member

Kernel 2.4.5 - what to do now ?

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

Hello,

Now pretty sure 2.2.10 does not have the same problem as 2.4.5

After about 18 hours of 2.2.10 doing the suggested make loop, and another
3 hours of -j 10, no problem evident. 

2.4.5 is another story. It does seem to depend on what value is given to
make -j.  At small -j, upto 4 it appears fine after limited tests. -j >5
has trouble, reporting illegal instruction.

What might be relevant is that it is predictable. At -j 6 it failed
several times at the same stage of compiling - in the same file.

Little swap space is used and there is about 2 meg of free mem still
available according to /proc/meminfo but that might not be right as I
can't be sure I'm seeing free mem at the instant it fails.

Stll have to try minimum 2.4.5 with removed hardware.

What can I do, what tools can assist ?

ken. 

Re: Kernel 2.4.xx - Problems

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Lars Wache wrote:

> *_ATTENTION!_*
>=20
> /The follow Text is german only... If you know anyone, who can translate =
it in/
> /english, bleas give them the Mail, because my english is very terrible..=
=2E/
> /:-(/
> //
> Hallo!
>=20
> Ich habe da ein gro=DFes Problem mit meinem 2.4.3-Kernel und meiner Picas=
so IV.
> Der Kernel funktioniert und mein System f=E4hrt hoch, aber ich kann nicht=
s
> sehen. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass die Grafik-Ausgabe nicht =FCber die Pi=
casso
> IV l=E4uft. Ich kann mich auch ganz normal einloggen (blind) und den X-Se=
rver
> KDE2 starten. Es sieht aber so aus als wenn versucht wird ein Bildschirm =
mit
> 1024x768 8bit auf einem PAL-Bildschirm darzustellen. In der Konsole habe =
ich
> das Problem dass sich alles am oberen Bildschirmrand abspielt. Ich habe
> mehrere Einstellungen versucht, aber =FCberall das gleiche. mit meinem
> 2.2.10er Kernel habe ich damit keine Probleme. Ich habe auch andere 2.4.x=
x
> Kernels versucht, aber ohne Erfolg. Hast Du vielleicht eine Ahnung, was d=
as
> Problem ist, und wie es aus der Welt zu schaffen ist?

x-lated:

I have there a large problem with my 2.4.3-Kernel and my Picasso
IV. The Kernel functions and my system starts up, but I cannot see
anything. I have the impression that the diagram output does not
run over the Picasso IV. I can log in also quite normally (blindly)
and the x-server KDE2 start. It sees however so out as if is tried a
display with 1024x768 8-bits on a PAL display to represent. In the
console I have the problem that everything at  the display top
margin take place. I tried several adjustments, but everywhere the
same with my 2.2.10er Kernel I have thereby no problems. I tried
also different 2.4.xx Kernels, but without success. Do you have
perhaps a notion, which the problem is, and as
it is to be created from the world?=20
=20
> Meine Rechnerkonfiguration ist folgende:
>=20
>         A4000/060 Cyberstorm PPC 604e
>         128MB Fast auf der Cyberstorm, 2MB Chip (Wer hats nicht?)
>         Picasso IV mit Pablo, Paloma und Concierto
>         MFCIII
>         ISDN-Master II Revision 8
>         X-Surf Ethernet-Karte
>         GVP SCSI-II Host-Adapter mit 4 GB Festplatte
>         Teac-CD-Rom am SCSI-II Controller
>         2 GB und 9 GB UW-Festplatte an der Cyberstorm
>         450 MB IDE-Platte am internen IDE-Controller des 4000ers

not going to translate this ;-)
=20
 So, damit d=FCrfte meine komplette Hardware genannt sein.
 Nun meine Software:
=20
         AmigaOS3.9
         LinuxPPC-Distribution vom AZT e.V. ( http://www.azt-ev.de )
         Linux-Kernel 2.2.10 f=FCr die Picasso IV

=2E..or this :-)
=20
> Ich hoffe, Dass Du mir ein wenig weiterhelfen kannst. Ich habe schon rege=
n
> E-Mail-Kontakt mit Michael Heider ( mic...@pl... )
> gehabt, der konnte mir aber auch nicht weiterhelfen, und hat mich an
> Dich verwiesen. Vielleicht kennst Du jemanden, der einen Lauff=E4higen
> Kernel 2.4.xx f=FCr die Picasso IV hat.
=20
> Wenn Du magst, kann ich Dir ja mal meine XF86Config zumailen, aber ich
> glaube, dass es daran nicht liegen kann. Zum anderen w=E4re ich auch froh=
,
> wenn ich auf der Linux-Seite mit meiner X-Surf ins Internet via DSL
>gehen k=F6nnte.

x-lation:

I hope that you can help me little. I already had to move E-Mail
contact with Michael Heider (michael.heider@planet interkom.de),           =
                 =20
which could not help me in addition, and has me to you referred.
Perhaps you know someone, which has an executable Kernel 2.4.xx for the
Picasso IV. If you like, I can  zumailen you times my =20
XF86Config, but I believe that it cannot be because of it. On the
other hand I would be also glad, if I could on the Linux page with
my x-Surf into Internet via DSL go.=20


okay, now this is in English, perhaps others can help....

http://babel.altavista.com

this is a VERY useful site...you can x-late many languages...converting
to/from English etc. some things look strange...but the IDEA gets across.

okay, please send the bootstrap line used and also the size of your
bootstrap program (perhaps old version being used).=20

Alan

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

Hello,

The sun came up this morning and then the power failed (I think it was a
coincidence) so I've no idea how the 2.2.10 looping compile test went.

It's running again, has been for about 3 or 4 hours, OK so far.

Last night I compiled the about the smallest 2.4.5 kernel I could get to
boot, compiling itself, it failed the make -j 3 test three out of three
times.

I've attached the .config for perusal and possible tests.

Ken

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Ken Tyler wrote:

> > 'make -j 10' or 'make -j 3' shouldn't make a difference for the memory.
> 
> Not disputing what you say but I would have thought that the running makes
> and gccs are still being brought into 'execution' memory, from disk
> buffers producing more mem activity, and also the more tasks mean more
> context switches and more opportunity for errors.

Depends on which errors you want to trigger. The more jobs are running
the more it's likely that they just waiting for i/o, so you only have
small number of jobs doing some real work (possibly even < 1).

bye, Roman

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Ken Tyler wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > I'm suffering from the same problem w.r.t. writing corrupted data to my DDS-1
> > under 2.4.x: so far ik _looks_ like it doesn't happen under 2.2.17, but I can't
> > prove it due to the nature of statistics. It's much easier to prove a problem
> > is there (you need only one `true' report), then proving the problem is not
> > there (you need infinite `false' reports). In the mean time I found one problem
> > under 2.2.19 too, so either it got introduced between 2.2.17 and 2.2.19, or it
> > does happen under 2.2.17 too.
> 
> I know what you're saying, Carl Popper and philosophy of science etc,
> repeated observations of sunrise every morning is no proof that it will
> rise tomorrow morning.

Actually sometimes the Sun doesn't rise in the morning due to an opaque moon
being in between :-)

> So you're saying that running the suggested make loop under 2.2.10
> overnight is not worth doing because it can't *prove* the absence of the
> problem ?
> 
>              2.2.10 make -j 10        2.4.5 make -j 10 
> 
> success           10                       0
> 
> fail               0                      10
> 
> comes pretty close to convicing me, where would you put your money ?

Sounds sufficiently convincing to me.

> Something else occured to me, is it possible that one of the daemons or
> some chron job splats something ?

Even then it's a kernel bug. Apps should not be able to crash the kernel.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> I'm suffering from the same problem w.r.t. writing corrupted data to my DDS-1
> under 2.4.x: so far ik _looks_ like it doesn't happen under 2.2.17, but I can't
> prove it due to the nature of statistics. It's much easier to prove a problem
> is there (you need only one `true' report), then proving the problem is not
> there (you need infinite `false' reports). In the mean time I found one problem
> under 2.2.19 too, so either it got introduced between 2.2.17 and 2.2.19, or it
> does happen under 2.2.17 too.

I know what you're saying, Carl Popper and philosophy of science etc,
repeated observations of sunrise every morning is no proof that it will
rise tomorrow morning.

So you're saying that running the suggested make loop under 2.2.10
overnight is not worth doing because it can't *prove* the absence of the
problem ?

             2.2.10 make -j 10        2.4.5 make -j 10 

success           10                       0

fail               0                      10

comes pretty close to convicing me, where would you put your money ?

I just want 2.4.5 to work, I'll do the overnight test - if the sun comes
up tomorrow ;) 

Something else occured to me, is it possible that one of the daemons or
some chron job splats something ?

Ken.

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Ken Tyler wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > 'make -j 10' or 'make -j 3' shouldn't make a difference for the memory.
> 
> Not disputing what you say but I would have thought that the running makes
> and gccs are still being brought into 'execution' memory, from disk
> buffers producing more mem activity, and also the more tasks mean more
> context switches and more opportunity for errors.

Yes, the probability for seeing problems is higher with a higher -j value, so
I'd expect to see more problems with higher -j values.

BUT, this is statistics! It's quite possible a single run at -j 10 will reveal
no problems, while it will at -j 3.

I'm suffering from the same problem w.r.t. writing corrupted data to my DDS-1
under 2.4.x: so far ik _looks_ like it doesn't happen under 2.2.17, but I can't
prove it due to the nature of statistics. It's much easier to prove a problem
is there (you need only one `true' report), then proving the problem is not
there (you need infinite `false' reports). In the mean time I found one problem
under 2.2.19 too, so either it got introduced between 2.2.17 and 2.2.19, or it
does happen under 2.2.17 too.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Roman Zippel wrote:

> 'make -j 10' or 'make -j 3' shouldn't make a difference for the memory.

Not disputing what you say but I would have thought that the running makes
and gccs are still being brought into 'execution' memory, from disk
buffers producing more mem activity, and also the more tasks mean more
context switches and more opportunity for errors.

> Anyway, last test to see whether it's the memory. Could you run this
> loop for a while under 2.2: 'while make -j 2; do make clean; done'. Keep
> it running for some time. If the memory is ok and 2.2 is stable, it
> should keep on going.

I'll do that tonight for 10 - 12 hours.

> Otherwise we need to localize what's going wrong, the best would be to
> start with an absolute minimum system, that means a 2.4.5 kernel with

Im currently building what I think is a minimum config, if it boots I'll
start pulling hardware after tonights tests.

Ken.

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Michel D=E4nzer wrote:

> 2.4 demands more swap (at least twice the RAM size) than 2.2 . Have you
> watched it during the build?

I have now, most of the 16 meg of fastram swap is used, but only about 35k
blocks of 200k blocks of hd swap is used - before signal 4, internal
compiler error appears.

Ken.
=20

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Hi,

Ken Tyler wrote:

> 2.2.? is stable, never a problem fron consoles, just compiled 2.4.5 with
> make -j 10 without a problem, which probably means memory and sawpping are
> OK ... yes ?

'make -j 10' or 'make -j 3' shouldn't make a difference for the memory.
There should be actually only light disk activity to keep the memory
busy. The more jobs you're starting the more you testing the disk i/o.
Anyway, last test to see whether it's the memory. Could you run this
loop for a while under 2.2: 'while make -j 2; do make clean; done'. Keep
it running for some time. If the memory is ok and 2.2 is stable, it
should keep on going.
Otherwise we need to localize what's going wrong, the best would be to
start with an absolute minimum system, that means a 2.4.5 kernel with
just the basic stuff compiled in and preferably also remove any unneeded
hardware and run the compile test. If that doesn't work, send me the
kernel + config + exact boot options and I'll try it on my machine. If
it works, add some hardware, activate the driver and rerun the tests.
It's really important to localize the problem as much as possible, if
it's somewhere in the base hardware, I can try to run the same test
here. If it's a driver problem, I can check the driver, but without
testing it myself I can only do some educated guess where the exact
problem is.

bye, Roman

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Ken Tyler wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > This either means bad RAM or so, or a bug in the kernel MM.
> 
> OK, but before I start looking for 32 Meg SIMMS, I tried Glenn's config
> removing PERMEDIA and PCI, putting in VIRGE, running the 2.4.5 kernel
> compiled with
> 
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/ppc-redhat-linux/2.95.2/specs
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo)
> 
> under 2.2.10 has the same problems.
> 
> make -j 10 :
> 
> gcc: Internal compiler error: program cpp got fatal signal 4
> make[1]: *** [ppc_defs.h] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux_CVS/2.4_new/arch/ppc/kernel'
> make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [first_rule] Illegal instruction (core dumped)
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux_CVS/2.4_new/kernel'
> make: *** [_dir_kernel] Error 2
> sched.c: In function `schedule':
> sched.c:711: Internal compiler error:
> sched.c:711: output pipe has been closed
> cpp: output pipe has been closed
> gcc: Internal compiler error: program as got fatal signal 4
> and etc
> 
> (is this compiler OK ?)
> 
> I'll now try just with AMIFB, no VIRGE.
> 
> Couldn't be caused by not having any PCI compiled in could it ?
> 
> Next is pulling out the mem and giving its pins a clean.
> 
> A bit odd that make -j 10 is OK on 2.2.10 ?

2.4 demands more swap (at least twice the RAM size) than 2.2 . Have you
watched it during the build?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project member

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Glenn H. <gh...@c2...>]

Hello,

On 17-Jun-01, Ken Tyler wrote:


> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

>> This either means bad RAM or so, or a bug in the kernel MM.

> OK, but before I start looking for 32 Meg SIMMS, I tried Glenn's config
> removing PERMEDIA and PCI, putting in VIRGE, running the 2.4.5 kernel
> compiled with 

> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/ppc-redhat-linux/2.95.2/specs
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo)

[...]

> (is this compiler OK ?)

I use the exact same version...


- glenn

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> This either means bad RAM or so, or a bug in the kernel MM.

OK, but before I start looking for 32 Meg SIMMS, I tried Glenn's config
removing PERMEDIA and PCI, putting in VIRGE, running the 2.4.5 kernel
compiled with 

Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/ppc-redhat-linux/2.95.2/specs
gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo)

under 2.2.10 has the same problems.

make -j 10 :

gcc: Internal compiler error: program cpp got fatal signal 4
make[1]: *** [ppc_defs.h] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux_CVS/2.4_new/arch/ppc/kernel'
make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** [first_rule] Illegal instruction (core dumped)
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux_CVS/2.4_new/kernel'
make: *** [_dir_kernel] Error 2
sched.c: In function `schedule':
sched.c:711: Internal compiler error:
sched.c:711: output pipe has been closed
cpp: output pipe has been closed
gcc: Internal compiler error: program as got fatal signal 4
and etc

(is this compiler OK ?)

I'll now try just with AMIFB, no VIRGE.

Couldn't be caused by not having any PCI compiled in could it ?

Next is pulling out the mem and giving its pins a clean.

A bit odd that make -j 10 is OK on 2.2.10 ?

Ken.

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Glenn H. <gh...@c2...>]

Hello,

On 16-Jun-2001, Ken Tyler wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Glenn Hisdal wrote:

>>> What is your hardware ?
>> 
>> A4000
>> CyberstormPPC  with 128MB RAM
>> CVisionPPC

> OK
> 
>>> Maybe my problem is unique to 604e processor on A4000 cyberstorm card.

> Thought you might have has a 1200 which have a different cpu. 

>> No, that can't be it. Then I should have had the same problem here...

> Send me your .config please and I'll try to compile that, can't see that
> being the problem though.
> 

(sent in private mail)

>> Do you use the 60nsram option ? Tried without it ?

> No, I've tried it and I can't run with that option. 

ok. same here...


- glenn

Re: Kernel 2.4.5-pre3

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Ken Tyler wrote:
> But under 2.4.5, X is much more stable, probably as good or nearly as good
> as another well known operating system. When it does crash, I've had about
> 6 so far, it returns to the initiating console and reports signal 4 and I
> think I saw signal 11 on one occasion. One thing that happens is that
> after X exits with a signal, the next command run, like ls, fails and
> reports illegal instruction but after that all is OK, I can restart X, do
> anything. 

This either means bad RAM or so, or a bug in the kernel MM.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds