Hi Rob, Rob McMahon píše v po 12. 07. 2010 v 10:05 +0100: > On 10/07/2010 15:35, Milan Jurik wrote: > > > I managed to install OSOL build 134 on a Toshiba Tecra M11: > > > - using Vesa mode > > > > > > Im seeing a lot of messages like: > > > Unknown domain coordination type: 4 ... !? > > > > > This message? > > > > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/i86pc/os/cpupm/cpupm_mach.c#661 > Hmm, ... > 616 cpupm_state_domains_t *state_domain; > 617 cpuset_t set; > 618 ... > 624 > 625 switch (state) { > 626 case CPUPM_P_STATES: > 627 state_ops = mach_state->ms_pstate.cma_ops; > 628 state_domain = mach_state->ms_pstate.cma_domain; > 629 break; > 630 case CPUPM_T_STATES: > 631 state_ops = mach_state->ms_tstate.cma_ops; > 632 state_domain = mach_state->ms_tstate.cma_domain; > 633 break; > 634 default: > 635 break; > 636 } > 637 > 638 switch (state_domain->pm_type) { > That can't be good. If state is not CPUPM_P_STATES or CPUPM_T_STATES, > don't bother setting state_domain and then immediately dereference > some garbage from the stack. Surely there should be at least an > cmn_err and return there, if not an assert ... I'm sure the function > is always called with state being one of the two, but still. >
Good point. Yes, it is called only with one of these STATES: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=cpupm_state_change&defs=&refs=&path=&hist=&project=%2Fonnv But at least ASSERT() would be nice there. Feel free to submit bug to bugs.opensolaris.org Best regards, Milan > Sorry, reading it just raised the hairs on the back of my neck. > > Rob _______________________________________________ pm-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss
