From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265810AbUGTMCO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:02:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265812AbUGTMCO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:02:14 -0400 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:7179 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265810AbUGTMCN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:02:13 -0400 Date: 20 Jul 2004 14:02:11 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:02:11 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "R. J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.8-rc1: Possible SCSI-related problem on dual Opteron w/ NUMA Message-ID: <20040720120211.GA72772@muc.de> References: <200407171826.03709.rjwysocki@sisk.pl> <20040717181240.GA67332@muc.de> <200407172109.38088.rjwysocki@sisk.pl> <200407181448.14614.rjwysocki@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407181448.14614.rjwysocki@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I had this problem again this morning. I was unpacking the kernel tarball to > /dev/sda8 and it went south (the tarball had been partially unpacked before > the partition was remounted r-o). Then, I got back to 2.6.7 and ran fsck - > now it found some errors (obviously) and fixed them. Next (on 2.6.7), I > unpacked the kernel to /dev/sda8 (again) and compiled the 2.6.8-rc2. I ran > it, unpacked the kernel to /dev/sda8 (again) and compiled it - everything > worked. Then, I applied your patch on top of the newly created 2.6.8-rc2 > tree and compiled the kernel. After installing and running it I tried to > unpack the kernel to /dev/sda8 (again) and it went south, so I got back to > the "plain" 2.6.8-rc2, ran fsck and fixed the partition, unpacked the kernel > to /dev/sda8 - and it all worked. > > So, it seems, there's something in your patch that causes this misbehavior. In which patch eactly? x86_64-2.6.8rc1-1 or x86_64-2.6.8rc1-2 ? If it started with -2 can you check if -1 has the problem too? -Andi