On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 12:25, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> Ok. I will check. My goal is to hit 2.4.20 as the primary production
> kernel when it's ready, but I'm looking for a production -AA patch,
> which I think I'll have to use split patches, from AA, so long as the
> XFS code in -AA is up-to date with SGI. I'll take a closer look.
> Thanks much for your help!
I've checked it out, but I don't see anything relating to c7 or c9 in
the System.map or any loaded symbols from modules.
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 12:16, Stephen Lord wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 12:00, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > > A box of mine crashed last night, it'd been up for > 60 days prior
> > to
> > > Some initial research on Google has shown the first of the below
> > > messages relating to XFS. Could this still be a problem?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > Not sure of the timing, but we cut a lot of stuff out of the stack
> > in various xfs functions over the last few months. It is possible
> > that this kernel did not have those changes given how long it
> > had been up.
> > Steve
> > --
Also, just because I get a "Detected potential for stack overflows"
message doesn't mean my box should blow up does it? I don't think it
should, especially after doing more resaerch on google groups, seems
like the messages are just warnings, but not necessarily fatal.
Also, the 2.4.19-aa1 XFS code is a bit old from my understanding anway,
but we've been using it for a *very* long time, and actually still use
2.4.10 kernels on some boxes, and that code is even older, without any
XFS related problems.
Does that seem about sane?
> Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Coremetrics, Inc.