From: Harry Kalogirou <harkal@gmx.net>
To: jb1@btstream.com
Cc: Linux-8086 <linux-8086@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "mount" bug
Date: 26 Oct 2002 17:49:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1035642211.5492.41.camel@cool> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0210260124250.31977-100000@olympus.btstream.com>
> This was my fault; since the machine was happily using both floppy drives
> under Windows 95 I didn't bother to run the BIOS Setup program. While
> checking the "impossible" I discovered that it was set up for only for a
> 1.2M first drive. After correcting this to 1.44M first drive and 1.2M
> second drive, it worked.
>
> This leads to an interesting question: is the fact the floppy mounted, but
> was otherwise inaccessible a bug or a feature? If ELKS should be handling
> all possible low-level functions then it's a bug in the mount() function
> (presumably in the kernel). If mount invokes the ROM BIOS to reduce the
> size of the kernel then it's a feature, and perhaps it could be reduced
> further by using the ROM BIOS for more of the diskette-handling (which
> might have made the diskette accessible despite my incorrect settings).
All floppy access goes through the BIOS. There is a direct floppy
version of the code in the kernel source tree but probably needs a lot
of work. Also the size of the code might be a problem. On the other hand
if we make it work, floppy access wont pause the whole system any more.
> I now think the "Cannot fork", reduced free memory and deteriorating
> system are *not* diagnostic of an incorrect BIOS setup, but rather a
> hardware incompatibility and maybe an ELKS bug revealed by the
> incompatibility. The system on which this occurred has a VL-Bus/EISA
> motherboard and a "bootable" EISA SCSI card. I noticed that when I
> repeated "ps" its process ID jumped by large amounts, and the problems
> occurred when the process ID was displayed as a negative number, after
> which the init process disappeared entirely; I also saw two "init" entries
> once. I suspect the hardware is somehow spawning, then killing new init
> processes frequently, and that when the process ID is negative (or maybe
> when it rolls over to positive again) killing the second init also kills
> the first. "Cannot fork" seems to appear when there's no active init
> process. I'll investigate further, but these should have their own threads
> in the mailing list.
"Cannot fork" is emmited by the shell, when the fork() system call
fails. The system call will fail :
1) If there are no more process slots available.
2) There is not enough free memory.
What exacly happend there, I realy can't tell. The only thing I can tell
is that something "very" bad happed there. I personaly havedn't seen
ELKS behave like that before.
Harry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-26 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-25 9:28 "mount" bug jb1
2002-10-25 13:30 ` Harry Kalogirou
2002-10-26 8:55 ` jb1
2002-10-26 14:49 ` Harry Kalogirou [this message]
2002-10-27 12:57 ` fork bug [WAS: Re: "mount" bug] jb1
2002-10-27 19:49 ` Harry Kalogirou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1035642211.5492.41.camel@cool \
--to=harkal@gmx.net \
--cc=jb1@btstream.com \
--cc=linux-8086@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox