From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Kinzler Subject: Re: Xen dom0 crash: "d0:v0: unhandled page fault (ec=0000)" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:31:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4CBE2A43.70200@hfp.de> References: <19629.39326.337589.71778@wylie.me.uk> <1287498599.12843.2111.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com> <4CBDB229.3030501@infinitumb.de> <1287503143.12843.2191.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1287503143.12843.2191.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Gianni Tedesco Cc: "Alan J. Wylie" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , sven , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19.10.2010 17:45, Gianni Tedesco wrote: > ditto, I suspected a known bug in my gcc version which broke xchg > because when I compiled with -O2 instead of -Os... the problem went away > but then something else bad happened later (I forget the details, and it > was too many config tweaks ago to get back to last time I had it working > that well) Jeremy, one user earlier reported that he found out that for him there seems to be a relation between kernel size and crash status. He just added/removed some options that could never influence the "crash status" (like adding/removing netfilter modules). With all the experiences here, is may be useful to check for code paths related to kernel size. Regards Andreas