2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by lcku » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00



Hi

I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
sched.c.
But why hangs the system always, if i use some debugging in
sched.c??????
Anyone can tell me why???

Regards

lckun

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by lcku » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00



> Hi

> I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> sched.c.
> But why hangs the system always, if i use some debugging in
> sched.c??????
> Anyone can tell me why???

> Regards

> lckun

After using for kernel output, kernel  hangs almost at booting "Starting
cron daemon: "

lckun

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by Stefan Monnie » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00



> I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> sched.c.

I don't know how `printk' is implemented in the kernel, but it might
simply not work from inside the scheduler (it seems very easy to get in a
dead-lock situation when doing anything vaguely fancy in the scheduler).

        Stefan

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by Stefan Monnie » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00



> I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
> printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);
> only to test it.
> It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

So what ?

        int x = 1;
        char y = *(char*)&x;

will also work in most cases (but will not always put the same value in `y').
That doesn't mean that it is *supposed* to work.
Now, again, I have no clue whether printk is supposed to be working from
goodness or not, but you'd better check this first.

Quote:> Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but
> in vain... :-( :-(

How about asking on the list I pointed you to earlier so that you can know
instead of using trial and error which only tells you what `seems to be
working' rather than `what should be working'.

        Stefan

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by lcku » Sun, 30 May 1999 04:00:00


Thanks Stefan,

I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);

only to test it.

It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but in
vain... :-( :-(

Anyway thanks agian your tips...

Regards

lckun



> > I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> > It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> > sched.c.

> I don't know how `printk' is implemented in the kernel, but it might
> simply not work from inside the scheduler (it seems very easy to get in a
> dead-lock situation when doing anything vaguely fancy in the scheduler).

>         Stefan

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by lcku » Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Hi Stefan


you gave me.
But my e-mali returned to me. I think the adress is changed.. :-)
Have you new adress for me to the mailing list for linux-kernel

Regards

lee



> > I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
> > printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);
> > only to test it.
> > It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

> So what ?

>         int x = 1;
>         char y = *(char*)&x;

> will also work in most cases (but will not always put the same value in `y').
> That doesn't mean that it is *supposed* to work.
> Now, again, I have no clue whether printk is supposed to be working from
> goodness or not, but you'd better check this first.

> > Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but
> > in vain... :-( :-(

> How about asking on the list I pointed you to earlier so that you can know
> instead of using trial and error which only tells you what `seems to be
> working' rather than `what should be working'.

>         Stefan

 
 
 

2.2.9 is stable?

Post by lcku » Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Now i found e-mail adress for mailing-list.. :-)

lckun

 
 
 

1. Upgrade from 3.4-STABLE to 4.x-STABLE

Can someone help me upgrade from 3.4-STABLE to 4.x-STABLE?  I tried
getting the sources for RELENG_4, but then when I tried make
buildworld I got all sorts of compilation errors.

Then I saw a note that said I had to go to 4.1 first.  So I set
RELENG_4_1, but for that target I get no sources at all! (my /usr/src
is now empty)

I don't need help on how to build, I plan on following the UPDATING
instructions, but I am confused about what set of targets I should aim
for and in what order.  Can someone help me?  Thanks!

2. Insert a line in a file

3. 3.2-STABLE to 3.4-STABLE device name change

4. USR Modem setup -- Setup Advice??

5. 4.0-20000430-STABLE vs. 4.0-STABLE

6. $$COULD YOU USE A LOTTA XTRA CASH?$$

7. 2.2.8 Stable to 3.0 Stable Migration Question

8. ATA Internal Error 227 Help!!!!

9. FreeBSD 3.5-STABLE to 4.3-STABLE

10. STABLE versus stable

11. Upgrade from 2.1-Stable to 2.2-Stable

12. WHAT do They Mean 2.4.1 Stable when 2.4.0 was just released stable?

13. Need advice on stable hardware for 4 STABLE.