On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:35:25 -0400 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:38:09 PDT, a...@linux-foundation.org said: > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-07-19-16-37 has been uploaded to > > > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ > > Throws a warning at boot: > > [ 1.786060] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:264 > pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54() > [ 1.786088] Hardware name: Latitude E6500 > [ 1.787045] pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object > [ 1.787966] Modules linked in: > [ 1.788940] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35-rc5-mmotm0719 #1 > [ 1.790035] Call Trace: > [ 1.791121] [<ffffffff81037335>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98 > [ 1.792205] [<ffffffff810373e1>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x43 > [ 1.793279] [<ffffffff81057c14>] pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54 > [ 1.794347] [<ffffffff8134889e>] e1000_configure+0x421/0x459 > [ 1.795393] [<ffffffff8134afbd>] e1000_open+0xbd/0x37c > [ 1.796436] [<ffffffff8105743a>] ? raw_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 > [ 1.797491] [<ffffffff8145f948>] __dev_open+0xae/0xe2 > [ 1.798547] [<ffffffff8145f997>] dev_open+0x1b/0x49 > [ 1.799612] [<ffffffff8146e36e>] netpoll_setup+0x84/0x259 > [ 1.800685] [<ffffffff81b5037c>] init_netconsole+0xbc/0x21f > [ 1.801744] [<ffffffff81b5026c>] ? sir_wq_init+0x0/0x35 > [ 1.802793] [<ffffffff81b502c0>] ? init_netconsole+0x0/0x21f > [ 1.803845] [<ffffffff810002ff>] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f > [ 1.804885] [<ffffffff81b2ccae>] kernel_init+0x138/0x1c2 > [ 1.805915] [<ffffffff81003554>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [ 1.806937] [<ffffffff81590e00>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > [ 1.807955] [<ffffffff81b2cb76>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1c2 > [ 1.808958] [<ffffffff81003550>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 > [ 1.809958] ---[ end trace 84b562a00a60539e ]--- > > Looks like a repeat of something I reported against -mmotm 2010-05-11, though > a > WARNING rather than an outright crash - the traceback is pretty much > identical. > I have *no* idea why -rc3-mmotm0701 doesn't whinge similarly. >
I don't recall you reporting that, sorry. The warning was added by : commit 82f682514a5df89ffb3890627eebf0897b7a84ec : Author: James Bottomley <james.bottom...@suse.de> : AuthorDate: Mon Jul 5 22:53:06 2010 +0200 : Commit: Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> : CommitDate: Mon Jul 19 02:00:34 2010 +0200 : : pm_qos: Get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request() It's a pretty crappy warning too. Neither the warning nor the code comments provide developers with any hint as to what they have done wrong, nor what they must do to fix things. And the patch changelog doesn't mention the new warnings *at all*. So one must assume that the people who stuck this thing in the tree have volunteered to fix e1000e. Let's cc 'em. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired