NFS problem

NFS problem

[Navin Boppuri]

Hello,

I am trying to boot my custom board with the linux 2.2.13 kernel. It boots
OK but when it tries to do the NFS mount, it fails....... This is how it
looks. I dont understand what's going on. I testing the NFS server with some
other board and same ip's and it works fine. Any ideas????

lcd_lcvcr: 78000
loop: registered device at major 7
eth0: CPM ENET Version 0.2, 08:00:22:50:70:63
PPP: version 2.3.10 (demand dialling)
TCP compression code copyright 1989 Regents of the University of California
PPP line discipline registered.
Looking up port of RPC 100003/2 on 216.118.31.76
neighbour table overflow
neighbour table overflow
neighbour table overflow
eth0: transmit timed out.
 Ring data dump: cur_tx ff0028d0 (full) cur_rx ff0028c8.
dc00 002a 0015c642
dc00 002a 0015c6e2
dc00 002a 0015c782
dc00 002a 0015c962
dc00 002a 0015ca02
dc00 002a 0015caa2
dc00 002a 0015c502
fc00 002a 0015cb42
9c00 005a 00174000
9c00 0076 00174800
9c00 0076 00161000
9c00 0076 00161800
9c00 0040 00160000
9c00 0040 00160000
9c00 0076 0015f000
b000 7edd 0015f800
eth0: tx queue full!.
neighbour table overflow
eth0: transmit timed out.

and it goes on and on. After some time, it says server returned error -5 and
then tries a reboot. What's going on???

Navin.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Question regarding PowerPC routine compilation.

[Zhaobin Zhu]

Hi,

This is a newbie question regarding (PowerPC) calling a C routine within a .S
file:

Let me take an example:

in arch/ppc/kernel/head.S,
...
        mr      r3,r31
        mr      r4,r30
        mr      r5,r29
        mr      r6,r28
        mr      r7,r27
        bl      identify_machine
...
The code calls rountine identify_machine(..) in setup.c.

Questions:

   The identify_machine(..) in setup.c will certainly use some of the registers
(r0-r31).
   Will the compiler protect the registers used in the routine (for example
   push them into stack before entering the routine and pop them out
   after exiting the routine ) ?

   If yes, how the compiler does the protection ? Will it simply save all the
regs
   into stack before entering routine and restore them after returning from the

   routine (except R3 wiich may be used as a pointer to some returned value).

   If compiler does no reg protection, then there is no gurantee that the
register set
   will be the same before and after calling a C routine. It's the calling
code's
   responsibility to make sure some important regs will not be altered after
return
   from a C routine.

Thanks,

--
 Zhaobin Zhu
 zzhu@emc.com


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Question regarding PowerPC routine compilation.

[Jerry Van Baren]

Some registers are protected, some are free game.  For details, see the
ABI (Application Binary Interface) page 3-14 and EABI (Embedded
Application Binary Interface) specifications:
   http://www.esofta.com/softspecs.html

gvb


At 04:33 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Zhaobin Zhu wrote:

>Hi,
>
>This is a newbie question regarding (PowerPC) calling a C routine
>within a .S
>file:
>
>Let me take an example:
>
>in arch/ppc/kernel/head.S,
>...
>         mr      r3,r31
>         mr      r4,r30
>         mr      r5,r29
>         mr      r6,r28
>         mr      r7,r27
>         bl      identify_machine
>...
>The code calls rountine identify_machine(..) in setup.c.
>
>Questions:
>
>    The identify_machine(..) in setup.c will certainly use some of the
> registers
>(r0-r31).
>    Will the compiler protect the registers used in the routine (for
> example
>    push them into stack before entering the routine and pop them out
>    after exiting the routine ) ?
>
>    If yes, how the compiler does the protection ? Will it simply save
> all the
>regs
>    into stack before entering routine and restore them after
> returning from the
>
>    routine (except R3 wiich may be used as a pointer to some returned
> value).
>
>    If compiler does no reg protection, then there is no gurantee that the
>register set
>    will be the same before and after calling a C routine. It's the
> calling
>code's
>    responsibility to make sure some important regs will not be
> altered after
>return
>    from a C routine.
>
>Thanks,
>
>--
>  Zhaobin Zhu
>  zzhu@emc.com
>
>


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/