From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christian Kujau" Subject: Re: Oops in 2.6.10-rc1 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:31:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20041107182155.M43317@g-house.de> References: <4180F026.9090302@g-house.de> <4180FDB3.8080305@g-house.de> <418A47BB.5010305@g-house.de> <418D7959.4020206@g-house.de> <20041107130553.M49691@g-house.de> <418E4705.5020001@g-house.de> Reply-To: evil@g-house.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, perex@suse.cz List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:57:40 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote > > You can check the ALSA tree _before_ the merge, by doing (in > the current tree): > > bk undo -a1.2000.7.2 > > which should give you a tree without any of "my" stuff, ie it > was what Jaroslav was working on before he merged it into the > standard tree. yes, i already did so, i think: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109979092216919&w=2 but i did it this way: bk clone -r1.2000.7.1 linux-2.6-BK linux-2.6-BK-test bk undo -a1.2010 (probably wrong, so i'll repeat it as you suggeseted) > (BK revision numbers change on merges, so the above number is > not necessarily the right one unless you have the current -bk aha! > A quick suggestion: make sure that there is not some stale > object file lying around confusing things about memory layout, > and do a "make clean" and make sure that all old modules are > clean too and re-installed. really: i always do "make clean", even "make mrproper" sometimes, just to be sure. and i am quite certain, that i did not forget to install the modules. but i'll keep my eyes open, yes. > The kernel dependencies should be correct, but even then there can be > problems with clocks that are off a bit etc. i'm updating via "ntpdate" on every boot. i am even using a (faster) 2nd machine for my build and the bk things right now: building a current -bk on boths hosts gives me this error. > Yes, that makes me suspicious, and is one reason why I wonder > if it's just your tree not being built right. i'll build a -bk snapshot from a tar.bz2 later on and see what it gives. > There are different revision numbers: there's the revision > number for the _file_, and there is the revision number for > the _change_. aha. it was kinda confusing...now i got it, i think ;) again: thank you for your time on this rainy weekend, Christian. -- BOFH excuse #8: static buildup