From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Backtrace in xen/next-2.6.38 when running guest Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:22:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1296768153.20804.252.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1296675083.20804.243.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D49B4C8.7030700@goop.org> <1296682904.20804.244.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1296722319.13091.378.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4B1549.3070202@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D4B1549.3070202@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , M A Young , Rzeszutek Wilk , Konrad List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 20:51 +0000, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 02/03/2011 12:38 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 21:41 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:47 +0000, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >>> On 02/02/2011 11:31 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:20 +0000, M A Young wrote: > >>>>> I get backtraces from the dom0 kernel when running a guest with networking > >>>>> (via netback) enabled such as the one below (there are some slight > >>>>> variations but the first two lines and most of the rest of the contents > >>>>> are the same). > >>>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:2190 > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Netback for upstream is still a WIP (I wasn't expecting it to be merged > >>>> anywhere yet and have already and will continue to rebase my branch). > >>> I merged it into next to get some exposure, but I'll happily revert and > >>> remerge as you make changes. What's your working branch? > >> Same branch but I haven't pushed an update yet. > > Updated version pushed to: > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/linux-2.6.git upstream/dom0/backend/netback > > Is that a rebase? Yes. > J