xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: notifier chain problem? (was Re: 2.6.17-rc1 did break

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: notifier chain problem? (was Re: 2.6.17-rc1 did break XFS)
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:32:10 +1000
Cc: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0604131618350.17374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20060413052145.GA31435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060413135000.GB6663@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0604131618350.17374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
On Friday 14 April 2006 00:21, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Looks strange, the faulting address is in the same region as the
> >> eip. I am not that strong on x86 layouts, so I am not sure whether
> >> 0x78xxxxxx is the kernel's mapping or it's module space. Almost looks
> >> like something else had registered a notifier and then gone away
> >> without unregistering it.
> >
> >sorry, the essential data I didn't provide here is
> >probably that I configured the 2G/2G split, which for
> >unknown reasons actually is a 2.125/1.875 split and
> >starts at 0x78000000 (instead of 0x80000000)
>
> That's how it is coded in arch/i386/Kconfig. It says 78 rather than 80.
> Maybe Con has an idea?

Follow this thread backwards from this point:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113690295909937&w=2

-- 
-ck


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>