On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:07:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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*. Sorry about that. Its my fault, but I thought I had stronger language in the original warning text.
The warning is for pm_qos users that are attempting to change a request that isn't even in the list of request. It was a silent failure in the original code. The result of the silent fail is that the request is not changed as assumed by the caller. > So one must assume that the people who stuck this thing in the tree > have volunteered to fix e1000e. Let's cc 'em. I'll put a 1000e patch together at the airport, but I wont be able to test it until tuesday. --mgross ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
