[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: To ext3 developers


On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:17:06AM -0700, Halbert Thiodore wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Yes, it is either a bug, or something [else].  It is hardware failure
> > in some cases, a core VFS bug in others, an ext3 bug in others.
> Hardware failure is not possible in this case because everything is smooth
> under windows 98.

Don't you believe it --- we have had plenty of instances where Linux
was able to drive the hardware a bit harder than Windows, exposing
hardware problems that Windows did not see.  There are also plenty of
cases where there are hardware problems and the manufacturer "solved"
them by adding a Windows driver to disable the buggy feature.  Just
because something works in Windows and not in Linux does not mean
there's no hardware fault.

> > Please tell us the exact kernel version, hardware config, and the text
> > of the error.  Without precise information, we can't diagnose
> > problems, we can only guess.
> cpu: 0
> eip: 0010 [<c0134c1>] not tainted
This should be an 8-digit number.

> eflags: 00010202
> eip is at (2.4.18-3)
> eax: cfda0302
> esi: 0000e
These two lines are incomplete: there should be other stuff on it.

> ds: 0018
> process swapper (pid 1, stackpage = c13153000)

> stack: 09000000 00000000 0000000 000000 00000000 00000002 00000000
>        cfda32d0 ce6cd230 0000000 ........ etc.
The stack bit doesn't matter quite so much;

> call trace: [<c0138765>]
> [<c013924>]
> [<c0137ae6>]
> [<c01382bf>]
> [<c013843a>]
but this bit matters a lot, and again it is truncated.

An accurate oops message would be useful here.  

When things die, are you getting random different error messages, or
is it always the same message?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]