| To: | Herbert Poetzl <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: notifier chain problem? (was Re: 2.6.17-rc1 did break XFS) |
| From: | Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:21:18 +0200 (MEST) |
| Cc: | Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxx>, Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 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: | <20060413135000.GB6663@MAIL.13thfloor.at> |
| References: | <20060413052145.GA31435@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <20060413072325.GF2732@melbourne.sgi.com> <yq0k69tuauh.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net> <20060413135000.GB6663@MAIL.13thfloor.at> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>> >> 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? Jan Engelhardt -- |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.17-rc1 did break XFS, Jan Engelhardt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Remounting read-only forces filesystem shutdown, Onis |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.17-rc1 did break XFS, Jan Engelhardt |
| Next by Thread: | 19" 1U Pentium 4 / LGA775 Server -- ISRV-1121B, DELIA HU |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |