From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3AC25348.C33F8692@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:10:33 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" Reply-To: mgreer@mvista.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien=20C=F4t=E9?= Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Stability of MontaVista's 2.4.0-test2-1.2.2-1 References: <3AC23B01.A9162C3B@matrox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: That version of the kernel does have problems. Get the latest linuxppc_2_5 source and try that. I haven't tested the last couple weeks but before then, it was very solid. Sandpoint support is in it. Mark -- Sébastien Côté wrote: > Hi, > > Did anyone have stability problem with MontaVista's kernel > 2.4.0=test2-1.2.2-1 ??? I'm running it on a board similar to Sandpoint > with a 7400 processor and sometimes it crashes because "current->mm == > NULL" (from do_page_fault). > > I'm not using any initrd but a shell (ash) instead. This seems to > happen when I run a lot of programs in my script. I also seems to be > related to a synchronisation problem since it gets a lot more stable > when I add "printk"s in the functions switch_mm and activate_mm. > > This could also be related to the fact that I'm running in little-endian > but since it only crashes once in a while, I would doubt it! So I'm a > bit suspicious about this test kernel, did anybody else have problems > with it?? > > Sébas.. > -- Mark A. Greer (mgreer@mvista.com; 480-517-0287) MontaVista Software, Inc. 2141 E. Broadway Road, Suite 108 Tempe, AZ 85282 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/