Re: 2.6.18-rt1

K.R. Foley
2006-09-29T02:09:43Z

john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 17:42 -0700, john stultz wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm seeing a similar issue. Although the log is a bit futzed. Maybe
>>>> its the sd_mod?
>>>>
>>>> at virtual address 75010000le kernel paging requestproc filesystem
>>> would be nice to figure out why it crashes - unfortunately i cannot
>>> trigger it. Could it be some build tool incompatibility perhaps? Some
>>> sizing issue (some module struct gets too large)?
>> Been looking a bit deeper into this again:
> [snip]
>> c03879e8 r __ksymtab_find_next_bit
>> c03879f0 r __ksymtab_find_next_zero_bit
>> c03879f8 R __write_lock_failed
>> c0387a18 R __read_lock_failed
>> c0387a2c r __ksymtab___delay
>> c0387a34 r __ksymtab___const_udelay
>> c0387a3c r __ksymtab___udelay
>> c0387a44 r __ksymtab___ndelay
>>
>> That __read/__write_lock_failed bit looks wrong.
>
>
> So it seems gcc 3.4.4 misplaces the __write_lock_failed function into
> the ksymtab. It doesn't happen w/ 4.0.3.
>
> Anyway, this patch explicitly defines the section and fixes the issue
> for me. Would the other reporters of this issue give it a whirl as well?
>
> thanks
> -john
>

John,

This fixes my problem on my fc3 box here at home. I will check my other
development boxes at work tomorrow. Nice catch and thanks for effort.

--
kr