| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs vs. lockdep |
| From: | Vlad Apostolov <vapo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:23:38 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <452B0E53.2070507@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <452A8DE2.4000608@xxxxxxxxxxx> <452ADCE9.2070402@xxxxxxx> <452B0E53.2070507@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909) |
Eric Sandeen wrote: Vlad Apostolov wrote:Hi Eric,Could you please provide some more information. What kernel, test case and call stack at the time of the crash.Thanks, VladVlad, for reference, this was a very recent FC6 test kernel, which has lockdep & slab debugging on. Oopsing is as simple as mounting & umounting. It dies in lockdep code.See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209062 -Eric Thanks Eric, I opened a pv and I see David C. replied to your email too. Vlad |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Timothy Shimmin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs vs. lockdep, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |