[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: post 2.6.7 BK change breaks Java?
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>I've pulled from the linux-2.6 BK tree some post-2.6.7 version, compiled
>>and installed it, and it breaks Java, standalone or plugged into
>>firefox, the symptom is that the application catches SIGKILL. This
>>didn't happen with stock 2.6.7 and doesn't happen with 2.6.6 either.
> I'm seeing the same thing. I'm using Eclipse a lot which is Java based,
> and I noticed that wen I went from plain 2.6.7 to 2.6.7-mm3 Eclipse
> started dying shortly after launch (it only manages to get the splash
> screen up) with a message about the JVM dying. Since I had also upgraded
> my Sun Java at the same time I initially suspected that and back down to
> my old version, but the problem persisted. Then I tried the latest Java
> release from Sun, with same result. Then I started suspecting the kernel
> and tried 2.6.7-mm6, 2.6.7-bk20 and 2.6.7-mm7 - all with the same result
> that Java breaks. Finally I went back to a plain 2.6.7 and the problem
> went away - so it certainly looks kernel related.
> I was using the same .config with all kernels (copied from my plain 2.6.7
> kernel to the others and then running 'make oldconfig'), so I'm also
> pretty sure it's not due to some new kernel option I've enabled that I
> don't usually use.
> My hardware is AMD Athlon (t-bird) 1.4GHz CPU in a ASUS A7M266 mobo with
> 512MB of DDR266 RAM.
>>Is there any particular change I should try backing out?
> I'm looking for the same thing, haven't found it yet unfortunately.


I've just started having a java application bomb out not long into
running as well where previously it would run for hours without
problems. However, unlike yourselves I'm running -ck and the only
change between the last working -ck and this kernel are the 3 security
patches. I haven't investigated because I cant take the machine offline,
but I suspect it's one of those possibly interfering. Looking at the
patches in question I have no idea how they could do it. I guess if you
can try backing them out it would be helpful. Here are links to the
patches in question.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.066 / U:66.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site