Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Dec 2006 20:05:25 +0530 | From | "Jaswinder Singh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] let WARN_ON() output the condition |
| |
Hi,
I am playing with linux kernel but kernel dumps on WARN_ON , when I commented WARN_ON in my code my kernel starts working but I get two sideeffects :-
1. During Boot kernel Hangs sometimes in :- Updating /etc/motd...done. INIT: Entering runlevel: 3 <<hangs>>
2. Always Hangs in :- cat /proc/interrupts after showing interrupts <<hangs>>
Are these side-effects of commenting WARN_ON.
Sometimes I also gets :-
<1>Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000004 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000004 <1>pgd = c5810000 pgd = c5810000 <1>[00000004] *pgd=85844031[00000004] *pgd=85844031, *pte=00000000, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] Modules linked in:Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 CPU: 0 PC is at dequeue_task+0xc/0x78 PC is at dequeue_task+0xc/0x78 LR is at deactivate_task+0x24/0x30 LR is at deactivate_task+0x24/0x30 pc : [<c0037264>] lr : [<c003759c>] Not tainted sp : c545ddcc ip : c545dddc fp : c545ddd8 pc : [<c0037264>] lr : [<c003759c>] Not tainted sp : c545ddcc ip : c545dddc fp : c545ddd8 r10: c68fd340 r9 : c02e04d4 r8 : c028ccf8 r10: c68fd340 r9 : c02e04d4 r8 : c028ccf8 r7 : c028ded8 r6 : c028ccf4 r5 : c545c000 r4 : c68fd340 r7 : c028ded8 r6 : c028ccf4 r5 : c545c000 r4 : c68fd340 r3 : 00000002 r2 : 00000000 r1 : 00000000 r0 : c68fd340 r3 : 00000002 r2 : 00000000 r1 : 00000000 r0 : c68fd340 Flags: NzcvFlags: Nzcv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 Segment user IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 Segment user Control: 5317F Table: 85810000 DAC: 00000015 Control: 5317F Table: 85810000 DAC: 00000015 Process X (pid: 1107, stack limit = 0xc545c198) Process X (pid: 1107, stack limit = 0xc545c198) Stack: (0xc545ddcc to 0xc545e000) Stack: (0xc545ddcc to 0xc545e000)
How to get rid of dequeue_task issue.
Thanks
Jaswinder Singh.
On 12/6/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> wrote: > > > Why not just: > > > > WARN_ON(debug_locks_off()) > > > > here? Would give a more readable message too, IMHO. > > debug_locks_off() has a side-effect, and in general we dont like to put > stuff with side-effects witin WARN_ON(). > > Ingo > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |