PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

[Jonathan Anderson]

On 6 Jan 2017, at 12:48, Pete Wright wrote:

> On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote:
>>
>> I just did the merge and it's using a relatively untested new KPI so 
>> regressions aren't too surprising I'm afraid. #96 is more or less 
>> content free in terms of providing useful information. Getting a core 
>> + backtrace would be a lot more helpful. See the repo's wiki for 
>> details on improving your odds of getting a core.
>>
>
> I have found the following has enabled me to catch kernel panic's 
> pretty reliably on the drm-next branch when i have the i915kms module 
> loaded:
>
> dev.drm.skip_ddb=1

Excellent: I turned that on and got a core, then got another core while 
tar'ing up the first core. :)

The machine in question is currently not connected to any network (iwm 
is being a bit unhappy), but once it is, where can I put the tarball?


Jon
--
jonathan.anderson at ieee.org