From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750979AbVLBToy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:44:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750986AbVLBToy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:44:54 -0500 Received: from solarneutrino.net ([66.199.224.43]:17669 "EHLO tau.solarneutrino.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978AbVLBTov (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:44:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:44:47 -0500 To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kai Makisara , Andrew Morton , James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ryan@tau.solarneutrino.net Subject: Re: Fw: crash on x86_64 - mm related? Message-ID: <20051202194447.GA7679@tau.solarneutrino.net> References: <20051129092432.0f5742f0.akpm@osdl.org> <20051201195657.GB7236@tau.solarneutrino.net> <20051202180326.GB7634@tau.solarneutrino.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Ryan Richter Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 07:12:19PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Ryan Richter wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > If the problem were easily reproducible, it'd be great if you could > > > try this patch; but I think you've said it's not :-( > > > > I can throw this in and test it for sure. I'll run the backups every > > day for a while to speed up the testing also. > > Thanks - though everyone seems to have agreed that the patch is needed > whatever: so although it would be interesting to know if it has fixed > your problem, we're not waiting on you to go forward with it (James > already invited Linus to pull). > > > Could someone please tell me exactly which patches I should include in > > the kernel I will boot tomorrow? > > You hit the problem with 2.6.14.2. My own opinion would be to apply > just that patch to that release, or to 2.6.14.3 if you prefer. > > Linus was suggesting 2.6.15-rc4 because there's some debug there which > might have helped identify the offending driver: but your backtrace > had already showed us the offending driver. Well, not proven: if a > page is doubly freed, the one that suffers is not necessarily the one > that's guilty; but it's a reasonable expectation. I don't think his > debug would tell us anything more. OK, I guess I'll stick with 2.6.14.3 for now, plus your patch. Should I keep Kai's st.c patch? There was some mention of other patches, are those relevant? Most of that discussion went over my head... Thanks, -ryan