Re: 2.1.99 oops

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
1 May 1998 05:57:16 GMT


In article <19980430232921.44048@AeroSpace>,
David Fries <dfries@mail.win.org> wrote:
>2.1.99 seemed to last long on my system than other 2.1.x kernels and it
>didn't even hard lock. I only tried it once, so that doesn't meen it won't
>lock.
>
>general protection: 3000

[ oops removed ]

This oops makes absolutely no sense at all. I see exactly where it
happens, but it just does not make any sense. It looks like a return
from an interrupt, but it looks like the interrupt simply hadn't pushed
the proper values on the stack.

It doesn't even look like memory corruption: the stack values actually
look sane for what it was doing before the interrupt or exception
happened.

In short, it looks like it got to the exception return code without
actually taking any exception in the first place..

>I did receive a few screen fulls of this type of error,
>attempt to access beyond end of device
>16:01: rw=0, want=185207049, limit=128240
>followed by I assume to be about the same number of this error,
>EXT2-fs error (device 16:01): ext2_free_blocks: Freeing blocks not in
>datazone - block = 2138996092, count = 1

This looks like fs corruption, either due to a failing disk, or due to
making a filesystem that extends to past the end of the device.

>I seem to always have problems with middle to late 2.1.x, I don't think
>I've logged over a day of continuous uptime, but extremely rarely have
>problems with 2.0.x.

What kinds of problems do you have with 2.0.x? The above oops is
non-sensical enough that I wonder whether your hardware is reliable:
most oops messages I can at least tell that they were due to following a
bad pointer or something, but this just makes no sense.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu