Hi Dave,
here goes another jfsCommit oops from kernel 2.5.27.
Distribution: Slackware 8.1
Kernel : 2.5.27
JFS utils : 1.0.20
Filesystems were created with jfs-utils 1.0.18 / kernel 2.4.18 by slackware
installation.
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000004
*pde = 00000000
Oops: 0002
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:[<c0184da8>] Not tainted
Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386
EFLAGS: 00010282
eax: 00000000 ebx: c880a08c ecx: c7ea0800 edx: c7d5f668
esi: c7cee000 edi: 00000000 ebp: c880a080 esp: c7cee000
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Stack: c7c7b86c 00000030 00001000 00000000 00000000 c7cee000 c7d5f65c
c7cee000
c7cee000 00000000 c01924bb c7d5f65c c7d62b98 00000000 00038da8
00c2a128
c7ea0800 c7d5f65c c6008000 00000030 00000000 00000001 00000000
00000030
Call Trace: [<c01924bb>] [<c019875f>] [<c0197fc0>] [<c01161e4>] [c0198c15>]
[<c0198ec4>] [<c0116350>] [<c0116350>] [<c0105000>] [<c0105000>]
[<c01057de>]
[<c0198d10>]
Code: 89 50 04 8b 4c 24 44 89 5a 04 89 41 0c 8b 45 30 89 55 0c 89
>>EIP; c0184da8 <dbUpdatePMap+458/540> <=====
>>ebx; c880a08c <_end+84d9ca8/85e5c1c>
>>ecx; c7ea0800 <_end+7b7041c/85e5c1c>
>>edx; c7d5f668 <_end+7a2f284/85e5c1c>
>>esi; c7cee000 <_end+79bdc1c/85e5c1c>
>>ebp; c880a080 <_end+84d9c9c/85e5c1c>
>>esp; c7cee000 <_end+79bdc1c/85e5c1c>
Trace; c01924bb <release_metapage+19b/270>
Trace; c019875f <txFreeMap+2ef/490>
Trace; c0197fc0 <txUpdateMap+100/370>
Trace; c01161e4 <schedule+1d4/300>
Trace; c0198ec4 <jfs_lazycommit+1b4/300>
Trace; c0116350 <default_wake_function+0/40>
Trace; c0116350 <default_wake_function+0/40>
Trace; c0105000 <_stext+0/0>
Trace; c0105000 <_stext+0/0>
Trace; c01057de <kernel_thread+2e/40>
Trace; c0198d10 <jfs_lazycommit+0/300>
Code; c0184da8 <dbUpdatePMap+458/540>
00000000 <_EIP>:
Code; c0184da8 <dbUpdatePMap+458/540> <=====
0: 89 50 04 mov %edx,0x4(%eax) <=====
Code; c0184dab <dbUpdatePMap+45b/540>
3: 8b 4c 24 44 mov 0x44(%esp,1),%ecx
Code; c0184daf <dbUpdatePMap+45f/540>
7: 89 5a 04 mov %ebx,0x4(%edx)
Code; c0184db2 <dbUpdatePMap+462/540>
a: 89 41 0c mov %eax,0xc(%ecx)
Code; c0184db5 <dbUpdatePMap+465/540>
d: 8b 45 30 mov 0x30(%ebp),%eax
Code; c0184db8 <dbUpdatePMap+468/540>
10: 89 55 0c mov %edx,0xc(%ebp)
Code; c0184dbb <dbUpdatePMap+46b/540>
13: 89 00 mov %eax,(%eax)
Can I use jfs from cvs with current kernels (2.5.29/2.4.19-rc3-ac3)
to see how latest changes work?
Best regards,
Axel Siebenwirth
On Monday 29 July 2002 10:06, Axel Siebenwirth wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> here goes another jfsCommit oops from kernel 2.5.27.
I haven't seen this trap before. I'll take a closer look at it, and let
you know what I find.
> Can I use jfs from cvs with current kernels (2.5.29/2.4.19-rc3-ac3)
> to see how latest changes work?
Yes. You should be able to just replace everything under fs/jfs with
what's in cvs.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel Siebenwirth
Thanks,
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
Hi,
I am working on a device driver for a device which supports MSI. I am not
sure how to attach an interrupt service routine for it. I will appreciate
any help in this regard.
Thanks,
Imran.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Monday 29 July 2002 10:06, Axel Siebenwirth wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > here goes another jfsCommit oops from kernel 2.5.27.
>
> I haven't seen this trap before. I'll take a closer look at it, and let
> you know what I find.
>
> > Can I use jfs from cvs with current kernels (2.5.29/2.4.19-rc3-ac3)
> > to see how latest changes work?
>
> Yes. You should be able to just replace everything under fs/jfs with
> what's in cvs.
Are you saying jfs in 2.5.29 jfs is not a problem? I'm looking to see if
I should put it on my problem status report.
On Monday 29 July 2002 19:33, Thomas Molina wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Monday 29 July 2002 10:06, Axel Siebenwirth wrote:
> > I haven't seen this trap before. I'll take a closer look at it,
> > and let you know what I find.
> >
> > > Can I use jfs from cvs with current kernels
> > > (2.5.29/2.4.19-rc3-ac3) to see how latest changes work?
> >
> > Yes. You should be able to just replace everything under fs/jfs
> > with what's in cvs.
>
> Are you saying jfs in 2.5.29 jfs is not a problem? I'm looking to
> see if I should put it on my problem status report.
2.5.29 had a problem that is fixed in Linus's bk tree. I had posted a
patch to this list as well. (Simply remove the calls to d_delete from
namei.c.)
Axel is seeing traps that I haven't seen elsewhere, so that's another
potential problem. We don't know the cause of that one yet.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> 2.5.29 had a problem that is fixed in Linus's bk tree. I had posted a
> patch to this list as well. (Simply remove the calls to d_delete from
> namei.c.)
>
> Axel is seeing traps that I haven't seen elsewhere, so that's another
> potential problem. We don't know the cause of that one yet.
I've added jfs oops to my problem report status page. I hope it will be
clear from the context which one is being discusssed.