From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932424AbVK2VgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:36:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932410AbVK2VgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:36:06 -0500 Received: from fep30-0.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.0.32]:34018 "EHLO fep30-app.kolumbus.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932423AbVK2VgE (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:36:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:36:22 +0200 (EET) From: Kai Makisara X-X-Sender: makisara@kai.makisara.local To: Ryan Richter cc: Andrew Morton , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fw: crash on x86_64 - mm related? In-Reply-To: <20051129205856.GE6326@tau.solarneutrino.net> Message-ID: References: <20051129092432.0f5742f0.akpm@osdl.org> <20051129203112.GD6326@tau.solarneutrino.net> <20051129205856.GE6326@tau.solarneutrino.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Ryan Richter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:48:22PM +0200, Kai Makisara wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Ryan Richter wrote: > > > This applies cleanly to 2.6.14.2, do you forsee any problems using it > > > with that kernel? I'd like to not change too many things at once. > > > > > No, I don't see any potential problems applying this patch to 2.6.14.2. > > There is nothing specific to 2.6.15-rc2. > > > > If someone sees that there is something wrong, please yell. The > > main purpose of the patch is not to call release_buffering() at the end of > > st_write() when starting asynchronous write and call it in > > write_behind_check() instead. > > OK, thanks. I think I'll go ahead and advance to 2.6.14.3 since that > should theoretically not cause any problems. > > One question: do you think the oopses that happened later that actually > crashed the box were from damage caused by this bug or is that a > different problem? > I looked at the oopses but, not knowing enough about what is happening inside the kernel, I can only hope that they are caused by the st bug(s). We will see after testing with the patch. -- Kai