Re: BUG? atleast >=2.6.19-rc5, x86 chroot on x86_64| perhaps duplicate bug report?

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 19:52 +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:07, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:25 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:29:02 +0100
> > >
> > > Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> > > > it appears some sort of bug has gotten into .19, in regards to x86
> > > > emulation on x86_64.
> > > >
> > > > i have only tested with >=rc5, thw folling, as an example, appears in
> > > > dmesg:
> > > > ioctl32(regedit.exe:11801): Unknown cmd fd(9) cmd(82187201){02}
> > > > arg(00221000) on /home/redeeman
> > > > ioctl32(regedit.exe:11801): Unknown cmd fd(9) cmd(82187201){02}
> > > > arg(00221000) on /home/redeeman/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32
> > >
> > > Try
> > >
> > > 	echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/compat-log
> > >
> > > I don't _think_ we did anything to change the logging in there.  Which
> > > kernel version were you using previously (the one which didn't do this)?
> >
> > it just struck me, that this may be the same bug Jesper Juhl has
> > discovered (atleast the hardlock part), as i read that thread, it strike
> > me that whenever i have hardlocks from this, its when i in wine runs
> > stuff that uses basically all my ram, and MAY even touch my swap.
> 
> I see this same ioctl32 warning on a few apps running inside Wine, but I've 
> not had any hard locks. On the contrary, everything works fine.
thats why i have come to suspect it may not be the ioctl thing that
causes the hardlocks, as i read that other thread
> 
> I guess it would be nice to know which ioctl it is that doesn't have a compat 
> wrapper on x86-64, 82187201 is a bit cryptic.
yes, it did not say these things on .18 :)

how do i get more verbose information on what exactly it is?
> 
> HTH.
>