Re: What is this kernel error?
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 00:46 -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:23:15PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 23:12 -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:56:21PM -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > My machine (desktop) was last booted 7 days ago. I rebooted because of
> > > > the new kernel. That's why I pointed out the specific kernel.
> > > <snip>
> > > that is at least SOMETHING useful. If you have an issue after you
> > > changed the kernel, then the 1st logical step is to try to boot with the
> > > last kernel, assuming that it is possible and see if the issue still
> > > happens.
> >
> > It is *X* and his screensaver. It took three seconds of typing in a
> > Google search widget and reading a few things.
>
> *What* did you search for? *Where* did you search? When I searched for
> the error on Google all I got was a single result that related it to
> mplayer, which clearly was *not* relevant.
>
> > He was not able to even give us context *UNTIL* he said he left and
> > *MAYBE* the screensaver kicked in and of all things, in a rant back to
> > me.
>
> Maybe it was the phase of the moon! That comment about the screensaver
> was meant to be satirical.
>
> Again, the screensaver has come on *many*, *many* times since the last
> reboot. What is different about this time? Is it a particular
> screensaver module? (I have it set to random so I never know which one
> will fire up next.) If it is a particular module, has a bug report been
> filed?
It is related to your video card, your motherboard chipset, opengl, xorg
and the enabled screensaver modules you might be running.
I'd have to say since the error occurs in-frequently, it is one of the
older screensavers that are not updated to properly use the new dri
setups. The actual error occurs when the screensaver tries to have the
video card do something the "old way".
BTW, the compiled error is a combination of specific set of errors.
Look in the current Debian source (drivers/char/drm/via_verifier.c),
you'll see the cases around the problems. Lines 1001 and 1058. YOu can
do your own back-tracing err stack tracing.
Much of this code is via NDA protected as you can tell from:
* Author: Thomas Hellstrom 2004, 2005.
* This code was written using docs obtained under NDA from VIA Inc.
And just below this we get:
* Don't run this code directly on an AGP buffer. Due to cache problems
it will
* be very slow.
So we know this deals with video on VIA chipsets.
> > I guess we can't trust people to even look for themselves anymore.
>
> Don't make unfounded assumptions.
You made many yourself, unfounded and absurd.
> > Rick Pasotto has been round filed in my book.
>
> *You* started the nastiness with your snide comment in response to a
> simple question.
>
> "Well, you know more than we do. We don't even have the machine at our
> disposal."
It wasn't even a snide remark. It was a simple "chuckle" and really that
is all it was. Since you operate the machine. Down there in GA.
> Maybe we should all post our boot.logs and syslogs and 'ps ax' (of
> course it kinda hard to do that for x minutes ago) and who knows what
> else for every little question we have. Would *that* be sufficient
> context?
I guess, when your blatant attempt to try to show my request as absurd,
actually gave the proper context so I could search for it.
> A little bit of *friendly* Q&A to zero in on the *relevant* context
> might be more productive.
You assumed it was *EVIL*. You *OBVIOUSLY* have quite a bit of "internet
presence" to tell me you are exceptionally combative and argumentative.
If you would pull back and just breathe, think and pause before you
respond, I'll bet many a threads or e-mails or posts wouldn't be as
"attacking poor Rick" as you think they are.
BTW, was that really you, on that cybernetics e-mail address?
And, no I am not picking a fight. You assume to much. I give everyone
the "ask smarter questions" spiel when we cannot make heads or tales of
the question.
So, in the end, you appear to have jumped off the handle a bit soon.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
Reply to: