(dropped stable from CC) On Thursday 08 October 2009, you wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > > On Friday 25 September 2009, Alexander Huemer wrote: > >>> So with the revert already in mainline for .32, the only thing left > >>> is for that to get included in stable updates for .30 and .31. > >> > >> please see the last comment in [1]. > >> can i do anything else to help ? > >> > >> [1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14124 > > it seems like the problem is _not_ solved. > i just booted with 2.6.31.3. > 2.6.31-gentoo-r2 is vanilla-2.6.31-r2 with a few unrelated patches. I don't know what vanilla-2.6.31-r2 is, but I assume it's based on either 2.6.31.3 or 2.6.31.2. > did the usual verification (compilation of gcc-4.3.4), > so in my opinion reverting commit [1] with commit [2] missed the point. > > [1] a5bfc4714b3f01365aef89a92673f2ceb1ccf246 > [2] 31b239ad1ba7225435e13f5afc47e48eb674c0cc The most likely explanation is that your earlier test from which you concluded that the revert did fix the problem was incorrect. It seems unlikely that some other stable commit interferes here. So basically we're back where we started. > [ 1018.059729] irq 23: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option) > [ 1018.059734] Pid: 8656, comm: sh Tainted: G W 2.6.31-gentoo-r2-blackbit #1 > [ 1018.059736] Call Trace: > [ 1018.059738] <IRQ> [<ffffffff81066ecf>] ? __report_bad_irq+0x30/0x7d > [ 1018.059748] [<ffffffff81067023>] ? note_interrupt+0x107/0x170 > [ 1018.059751] [<ffffffff81067610>] ? handle_fasteoi_irq+0x8a/0xaa > [ 1018.059755] [<ffffffff8100d1cf>] ? handle_irq+0x17/0x1d > [ 1018.059757] [<ffffffff8100c84b>] ? do_IRQ+0x54/0xb2 > [ 1018.059761] [<ffffffff8100b6d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa > [ 1018.059762] <EOI> [<ffffffff815c7d2c>] ? do_page_fault+0xed/0x2ef > [ 1018.059769] [<ffffffff815c7f12>] ? do_page_fault+0x2d3/0x2ef > [ 1018.059773] [<ffffffff812dd5ed>] ? __put_user_4+0x1d/0x30 > [ 1018.059776] [<ffffffff815c5fdf>] ? page_fault+0x1f/0x30 > [ 1018.059777] handlers: > [ 1018.059778] [<ffffffff813d2d8c>] (ahci_interrupt+0x0/0x426) > [ 1018.059783] Disabling IRQ #23 How reproducible is the error for you? Do you see it every time or not? If it is reliably reproducible, can you think of any explanation why your earlier test was a success while we now see that the revert does not help? Does the error *only* occur during gcc compilation, or was that just the simplest way to reproduce it? Does it always occur at the same point during the compilation or does it vary? Can you create a test case that does not require doing the whole compilation, but only executes the step that triggers the error? If you can find a reliable and fairly quick way to reproduce the error, I would suggest doing a bisection. Jeff, Tejun: do you have any ideas what could cause this issue to suddenly appear or how to debug/instrument it? Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
