On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:44:23AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:14:39AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:15:46PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > I'm also testing this patch set them without Jan's work, since I'm not
> > > sure when
> > > it will be pulled in. Here's the latest:
> > >
> > > case login: [ 2934.077472] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
> > > ffffc900036a8010
> > > [ 2934.078452] IP: [<ffffffffa009a790>] xlog_get_lowest_lsn+0x30/0x80
> > > [xfs]
> > > [ 2934.078452] PGD 12b029067 PUD 12b02a067 PMD 378f5067 PTE 0
> > > [ 2934.078452] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
> > > [ 2934.078452] CPU 1
> > > [ 2934.078452] Modules linked in: xfs(O) exportfs e1000e [last unloaded:
> > > xfs]
> > > [ 2934.078452]
> > > [ 2934.078452] Pid: 9031, comm: kworker/1:15 Tainted: G O
> > > 3.4.0-rc2+ #3 SGI.COM AltixXE310/X7DGT-INF
> > What out-of-tree module do you have loaded that tainted the kernel?
> > The ethernet driver?
> I tend to build xfs out of tree and then 'insmod ./xfs.ko'.
Ok, do you rmmod the xfs.ko module and insert new ones, or just
reboot whenever you have a new module for testing? I'm assuming that
you are unloading and reloading based on the "[last unloaded: xfs]"
above. That has always made me nervous about memory corruption
intorudced by a previous module affecting the running of a current