From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200009131556.QAA06666@hyperion.valhalla.net> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:56:28 +0100 Subject: Re: success 2.4.0-test8 with latest bk From: "Iain Sandoe" To: daenzerm@student.ethz.ch, Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: Paul Mackerras , "Linux -Dev" Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Sep 13, 2000, Michel Dänzer wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> >> > You are lucky. For me it stops booting after the "freeing unused kernel >> >> > memory" line. The one from 2 days ago had 2 days uptime. >> >> >> >> Usually this means that some function/data is marked __init while it >> >must not. >> >> Quick verification: #undef __init / #define __init etc. >> >> >> >> Just wondering: wouldn't it be possible to write some tool to find such >> >bugs? >> > >> >Update: After a recompilation with today's updates, the latest bk kernel >> >boots again for me. >> >> That's not the first time I notice this strange behaviour. I meant, this >> happened to me randomly with various bk kernels for monthes. The problem >> usually disappeared by itself after either recompiling the entire kernel, >> or changing a few unrelated lines of code and then reompiling. That's >> weird, I really don't know what can be causing that. > > Broken dependencies? un-init vars? there's still quite a few warning messages fly by on compile... ===== from a mrproper of rsync-ed bk-devel (13:00 BST today). boots OK (with BootX) on: G3/beige Lombard 9600/233 All three platforms show the weird coloured patterning on graphics chip probe (I guess) - *even* the 9600 - which is IMSTT-based. I have rage128 support built in. 2.4.0-t8 appears to be 'slower and choppier' than 2.2.17p20 (rather subjective, I know). The 9600 leaves the mac hardware cursor on the screen - which doesn't happen with 2.2.17 (who deals with that?)... BTW: two other questions: 1/ is devfs regarded as OK now (I built it in by mistake). 2/ has the fs-trashing problem been resolved? I'd like to get back to doing 2.4.0 versions of the bits I'm working on - but have only a little time for watching fsck ;-) Iain. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/