From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Frank Sorenson Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Fixing the 2.4 bugs - patches against 2.4.24-1um In-Reply-To: <200407012050.14867.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Message-ID: References: <200407012050.14867.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:51:02 -0600 (MDT) To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: user-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote: > I've started working also on UML/2.4. > > Today I've split the changes between 2.4.24-1um and 2.4.24-2um into several > patches; the HUMFS ones are carefully split out, but I've separated even the > others. Now I need testers. Lots of people cannot use UML patches later than > 2.4.24-1um, since they contain a lot of Hostfs bugs and some stability > issues. Now, if you use just some patches, you'll avoid the bugs in the > other. > > You should apply surely the first 3 patches, IMHO; the other ones should not > hurt; inside txt/ there is a description of them. BlaisorBlade, Thank you for splitting these patches out. Using them, I was able to track down and squash a kernel panic issue I've had with all 2.4 patch versions after 2.4.24-1um! My panic, for reference - http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=user-mode-linux-devel&m=108344473226217&w=2 In this case, the problem was actualy in the first 'mini-changes' patch, and the fix (diff to the 2.4.24-2um patch): --- uml-patch-2.4.24-2 2004-04-07 14:31:13.000000000 -0600 +++ uml-patch-2.4.24-2_frank 2004-07-07 14:26:49.000000000 -0600 @@ -35588,7 +35588,7 @@ + +ARCH_CFLAGS = -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -U$(SUBARCH) + -+ifeq ($(CONFIG_GPROF),n) ++ifneq ($(CONFIG_GPROF),y) +ARCH_CFLAGS += -DUM_FASTCALL +endif + The configuration program will either set CONFIG_GPROF to 'y', or it will put "# CONFIG_GPROF is not set" into the .config file. CONFIG_GPROF will never be 'n', at least in my understanding. I believe this bug may affect stability for a number of people, and it has existed since 2.4.24-2um first came out. It may not solve any underlying problems, but I'd like to hear if it helps anyone else. Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Sorenson - KD7TZK Systems Manager, Computer Science Department Brigham Young University frank@tuxrocks.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel