Re: oops in 2.4.1-pre8

[Scott A. Sibert]

Hi Urban.

I'm connecting to a Win2K server (same share between computers).  A 
slight change in my previous post:  my dual P2 w/320MB appears to be 
running 2.4.0-ac9 instead of 2.4.1-pre8.  The bigmem machine (1gb mem) 
had the oops on 2.4.0-ac9 but before reporting I thought I'd try 
2.4.1-pre8 and see if it also had the oops.  (This morning the small mem 
machine had a problem but I'll put that in a separate email.)

Earlier I had tried 2.4.0-test12 but it partially scrambled my root 
partition so I went back to 2.2.19-pre2.  After the oops I tried 2.4.0 
straight but when it was booting it decided my root partition had been 
umounted not-cleanly and decided it needed to do lots of icky things to 
my root partition.  I just rebooted it (without letting it do any 
changes) and went back into 2.4.1-pre8 and let it clean up the root 
partition.  So I don't know if 2.4.0 straight would do this (apparently 
it does from other people's reports) since 2.4.0 didn't want to play 
nice on my machine.

Since I can't do without smbfs I guess I'll have to do without bigmem.  
Please let me know when you're ready to test some fixes; I would be glad 
to help testing.

--Scott

Urban Widmark wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Scott A. Sibert wrote:
> 
>> I'm consistently getting an oops when accessing any smbfs mount whether
>> running 'ls' inside the smbfs mount or hitting TAB for filename
>> completion of a directory in an smbfs mount.  I have another machine
>> (dual P2/300 w/320MB memory) that does not have this problem.  The P2
> 
> 
> That other machine is not compiled with bigmem, I assume.
> 
> 
>> Ethernet is compiled into the kernel as is smbfs (not as modules).  I've
>> compiled this kernel with 4GB bigmem support (otherwise I only get 8xxMB
>> total).
> 
> 
> The smbfs cache code in 2.4.0 doesn't work with bigmem. For now disable
> bigmem or don't use smbfs, it's oopsing all the time.
> 
> Rainer Mager reported the same thing yesterday ("Oops with 4GB memory
> setting in 2.4.0 stable" if you want to read the thread).
> 
> I am currently looking into this ... what kind of server are you
> connecting to? win2k/NT4/9x? It is easier to test with those than the more
> exotic OS/2 & NetApp.
> 
> /Urban
>