check_ivt panic / binutils
I bisected the binutils CVS until I found the failure point. It seems that with 2006-04-30 I don't get the check_ivt failure (although the kernel does die immediately after e100 is initialised), but at 2006-05-01, I get the check_ivt failure.
What's *really* annoying is that the only changes between the two appear to be MIPS stuff. http://people.ubuntu.com/~jbailey/binutils.patch or "cvs diff -D 2006-04-30 -D 2006-05-01" to see what I mean.
My kernel config is at http://people.ubuntu.com/~jbailey/a500_config if it's of any use. I'm not sure what to look at next.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
Signature · 9 lines
Although when you're in the situation that RMS is telling you that you're being too ideological about freedom, maybe, just maybe, it's true. - Matthew Wilcox _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list [email protected] http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Quoted 4 lines
I bisected the binutils CVS until I found the failure point. It seems that with 2006-04-30 I don't get the
check_ivtfailure (although the kernel does die immediately after e100 is initialised), but at 2006-05-01, I get thecheck_ivtfailure.
It's not at all obvious why you think this is a binutils bug.
Quoted 1 line
IIR:
0e60109cISR: 0000000000000000 IOR: 0000000100000000
$ disasm 0x0e60109c 0: 0e 60 10 9c ldw 0(r19),ret0
Quoted 1 line
r16-19
00000000f00003b000000000f000024c00000000f0002b4c0000000100000000
The r19 value is the problem.
Dave
Signature · 6 lines
J. David Anglin [email protected] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list [email protected] http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Quoted 6 lines · John David Anglin
Quoted 4 lines
I bisected the binutils CVS until I found the failure point. It seems that with 2006-04-30 I don't get the
check_ivtfailure (although the kernel does die immediately after e100 is initialised), but at 2006-05-01, I get thecheck_ivtfailure.It's not at all obvious why you think this is a binutils bug.
Sorry, the first part of the conversation happened on IRC, my bad.
I was trying to figure out why I was seeing a problem that Joel had reported before and no-one else was. Kyle got me to try a sid chroot, and it didn't happen there. Eventually I narrowed down the difference between a working kernel and a non-working one was whether I was using a bleeding edge CVS snapshot, or whether I was using the released binutils-2.17 package.
I'm not claiming I know where the bug is, but I wanted to know what the change was that happened between a bootable kernel and a non-bootable kernel.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
IIR:
0e60109cISR: 0000000000000000 IOR: 0000000100000000$ disasm 0x0e60109c 0: 0e 60 10 9c ldw 0(r19),ret0Quoted 1 line
r16-19
00000000f00003b000000000f000024c00000000f0002b4c0000000100000000The r19 value is the problem.
Signature · 4 lines
Although when you're in the situation that RMS is telling you that you're being too ideological about freedom, maybe, just maybe, it's true. - Matthew Wilcox
_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Quoted 3 lines · Jeff Bailey
I'm not claiming I know where the bug is, but I wanted to know what the change was that happened between a bootable kernel and a non-bootable kernel.
I suppose the obvious thing to do is to objdump -dr each kernel and then diff the two. That'll tell you if it's a heisenbug or if there's actually any difference.
_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I bisected the binutils CVS until I found the failure point. It seems that with 2006-04-30 I don't get the
check_ivtfailure (although the kernel does die immediately after e100 is initialised), but at 2006-05-01, I get thecheck_ivtfailure.=20
It's not at all obvious why you think this is a binutils bug.
Quoted 8 lines
Sorry, the first part of the conversation happened on IRC, my bad.
I was trying to figure out why I was seeing a problem that Joel had reported before and no-one else was. Kyle got me to try a sid chroot, and it didn't happen there. Eventually I narrowed down the difference between a working kernel and a non-working one was whether I was using a bleeding edge CVS snapshot, or whether I was using the released binutils-2.17 package.
If you think it's a binutils issue, then cmp the two kernels or modules and see if they differ. Generate an assembler printout for the code that caused the panic. This would show if there's a relocation issue with the instruction that causes the panic.
There haven't been many changes to the hppa binutils port in recent months. The TLS stuff went in after you say the failure started.
Dave
Signature · 6 lines
J. David Anglin [email protected] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list [email protected] http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux