I got this in dmesg with 2.6.13-rc7-rt3 the other day. Maybe it's
useful. There were no visible effects.
idr_remove called for id=1024 which is not allocated.
[sub_remove+157/272] sub_remove+0x9d/0x110 (8)
[__wake_up+44/80] __wake_up+0x2c/0x50 (28)
[idr_remove+24/128] idr_remove+0x18/0x80 (28)
[remove_watch_no_event+77/208] remove_watch_no_event+0x4d/0xd0 (12)
[inotify_inode_is_dead+88/128] inotify_inode_is_dead+0x58/0x80 (12)
[prune_dcache+222/480] prune_dcache+0xde/0x1e0 (28)
[shrink_dcache_memory+56/64] shrink_dcache_memory+0x38/0x40 (28)
[shrink_slab+277/416] shrink_slab+0x115/0x1a0 (4)
[balance_pgdat+686/1024] balance_pgdat+0x2ae/0x400 (48)
[kswapd+168/240] kswapd+0xa8/0xf0 (96)
[autoremove_wake_function+0/48] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x30 (12)
[kswapd+0/240] kswapd+0x0/0xf0 (16)
[kernel_thread_helper+5/24] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0x18 (16)
Lee
* Lee Revell ([email protected]) wrote:
> I got this in dmesg with 2.6.13-rc7-rt3 the other day. Maybe it's
> useful. There were no visible effects.
>
> idr_remove called for id=1024 which is not allocated.
This should already be fixed in 2.6.13.
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=7c657f2f25d50c602df9291bc6242b98fc090759
thanks,
-chris
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 14:48 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Lee Revell ([email protected]) wrote:
> > I got this in dmesg with 2.6.13-rc7-rt3 the other day. Maybe it's
> > useful. There were no visible effects.
> >
> > idr_remove called for id=1024 which is not allocated.
>
> This should already be fixed in 2.6.13.
>
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=7c657f2f25d50c602df9291bc6242b98fc090759
>
Thanks, nice to see that my suspicion of an off by one error was right
(the 1024 was a dead giveaway).
BTW the rate of kernel development is just insane these days, even
compared to a year ago. It's quite encouraging. At this rate we're
going to leave the "competition" in the dust.
Lee