From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: 2.6.15-rt20, "bad page state", jackd Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:08:12 +1100 Message-ID: <441109BC.9070705@yahoo.com.au> References: <1141846564.5262.20.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <20060309084746.GB9408@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1141938488.22708.28.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <4410B2D7.4090806@yahoo.com.au> <1141958866.22708.69.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1141958866.22708.69.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano Cc: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar , Heiko Carstens , Steven Rostedt , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:57 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: >>Can you test with the latest mainline -git snapshot, or is it only >>the -rt tree that causes the warnings? > > > I found something strange although I don't know why it happens yet: > > Fedora Core 4 kernel (2.6.15 + patches) works fine. > Fedora Core 4 kernel + -rt21, [ahem... sorry], works fine. > Fedora Core 4 kernel + -rt21 + alsa kernel modules from 1.0.10 or > 1.0.11rc3, fails[*] > Plain vanilla 2.6.15 + -rt21, works fine > Plain vanilla 2.6.15 + -rt21 + alsa kernel modules from 1.0.10 or > 1.0.11rc3, fails[*] > > So, it looks like it is some weird interaction between kernel modules > that were not compiled as part of the kernel and the kernel itself. The > "updated" modules are installed in a separate location (not on top of > the built in kernel modules) and are found before the ones in the kernel > tree. > > I have been building this combination for a long long time with no > problems, I don't know what might have happened that changed things. > > Could be: > - configuration problems? No. It shouldn't do this even if there is a configuration problem. > - the alsa tree is somehow incompatible with the kernel alsa tree, is > that even possible? > Yes. Most likely this. It should be fixed before the new ALSA code is pushed upstream. It is probably not so much a matter of somebody breaking the ALSA code as that it hasn't been updated for the new kernel refcounting rules. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com