From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755883AbXGHBJ1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:09:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753929AbXGHBJS (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:09:18 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]:41407 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753771AbXGHBJR (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:09:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Jq4yrE+LXBpDopQKAsNESA6DnaGI6LkSw6b3n5xaqER6Mrpct45hgpHHkWBS0/v0lxKAgG+Uo9WHktA5r46hMTfkMLjoJB+x5eZ4jp2MlqWWpbThKAVv7CQCCNSLZSqlGj2KC6l3p5FxjV5i2sUqWKLPty6qtOXaGTtwPVJw9Qg= Message-ID: <469038EF.7040709@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:07:59 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miles Lane CC: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 -- BUG - EIP: [] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x1c2/0x226 SS:ESP 0068:c5ff9db8 References: <20070703094916.e60d4df7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <468B3CFF.7020903@gmail.com> <468C9E74.4080606@gmail.com> <468F36F5.4010803@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Miles Lane wrote: >> Weird, that's unrelated path. It seems sd->s_parent is NULL in >> sysfs_link_sibling(), which doesn't make sense because it's being called >> from sysfs_create_link() which makes sure parent_sd isn't NULL && >> sysfs_addrm_start() should have caused oops earlier as it deferences >> parent_sd. >> >> Can you please retry the test (test clean 2.6.22-rc6-mm1, apply patch, >> rebuild and test)? > > I downloaded linux-2.6.22-rc6.tar.bz2, applied 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 and then > applied your second patch. I still get the same OOPS I reported to you > and Andrew in the image I attached to my previous message. Thanks a lot. Just in case, if you remove the patch (patch -R -p1), the oops goes away, right? -- tejun