Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10586] New: High Number of Segfaults onMacBookStarting With 2.6.24.5 Kernel

[Ryan Roth <ryanroth@sbcglobal.net>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:57:51 -0700 Ryan Roth <ryanroth@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:04:36 -0700
>>> Ryan Roth <ryanroth@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Since this last boot I have only got these:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> May 1 16:26:25 kernel: gnome-power-man[3112]: segfault at 0 ip 410fda 
>>>>> sp 7fff4712c870 error 4 in gnome-power-manager[400000+47000]
>>>>> May 1 16:26:25 kernel: gnome-power-man[3116]: segfault at 0 ip 410fda 
>>>>> sp 7fff2959cce0 error 4 in gnome-power-manager[400000+47000]
>>>>> May 1 16:26:25 kernel: gnome-power-man[3119]: segfault at 0 ip 410fda 
>>>>> sp 7fffc7671db0 error 4 in gnome-power-manager[400000+47000]
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Well I don't know what the heck to do about that.  It could be that we've
>>> gone and changed the contents of (say) an acpi /proc file, and this happens
>>> to cause your particular version of gnome-power-manager to take a different
>>> (and buggy) codepath, so it crashes.  Or something like this.
>>>
>>> I hate to do this to you, but our best hope for getting to the bottom of
>>> this is for you to run a git bisection search to find out what we did which
>>> triggered this.  http://www.kernel.org/doc/local/git-quick.html has some
>>> instructions.
>>>
>>> Or you could go the other route and work out where and why
>>> gnome-power-manager is crashing.
>>>
>>> You could try upgrading (or downgrading) your gnome-power-manager version,
>>> see if that affects things.
>>>
>>> Does the problem affect only gnome-power-manager?
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> OK it looks like I was possibly (probably) barking up the wrong tree.  I 
>> was able to get gnome-phone-manager to give me some useful information 
>> and it turns out that gnome-power-management crashes if 
>> gnome-phone-manager is running first (which I had set to autorun) 
>>     
>
> heh, thanks, I wish they were all that simple.
>
> It'd be useful to go back to 2.6.24 and check that the same effects are
> seen there with the same userspace setup.
>
>   
>> something to due with bluetooth errors.
>>     
>
> Well..  bluetooth isn't exactly our shining example of kernel technology
> I'm afraid.  If you do suspect there are kernel problems in there please be
> sure to cc linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org on the email.
>
>
>   
I'm pretty sure it's an issue with bluez, thanks for all help.