Hi!
> Are there some potentially serious problems that I should be aware of
> if I totally disable the CONFIG_ACPI option on the X86_64 platform?
>
> Would it do harm to the hardware?
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.
These machines are still mostly IBM-PC compatible, so it is
I am seeing an issue in our Linux port where printk() format %pS will print
a symbol as:
kernel_init+0x120/0x120
where the offset within the function 0x120, is the same as the function
size 0x120; in fact, the largest offset within the function should be 0x11f.
When printing above symbol+offset
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
>These machines are still mostly IBM-PC compatible, so it is likely to
>somehow work. You'll likely get worse power and thermal
>management. Try it.
It's an industrial personal computer with an Intel processor.
What I am worried about is that it may
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:11:19AM -0400, William Tambe wrote:
> I am seeing an issue in our Linux port where printk() format %pS will print
> a symbol as:
> kernel_init+0x120/0x120
> where the offset within the function 0x120, is the same as the function
> size 0x120; in fact, the largest offset
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 6:29 AM Valentin Vidić
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:11:19AM -0400, William Tambe wrote:
> > I am seeing an issue in our Linux port where printk() format %pS will
> print
> > a symbol as:
> > kernel_init+0x120/0x120
> > where the offset within the function 0x120, is
On Sat 2020-07-04 21:34:36, 孙世龙 sunshilong wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
>
> >These machines are still mostly IBM-PC compatible, so it is likely to
> >somehow work. You'll likely get worse power and thermal
> >management. Try it.
> It's an industrial personal computer
Hi, Valdis Klētnieks
Thank you for your generous help.
My understanding of this matter is on a different level with your help.
>>Jul 3 10:23:31 yx kernel: [ 1176.166058] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup -
>>CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [rt_cansend:1837]
>>Jul 3 10:23:31 yx kernel: [ 1176.166066] Modules
Hi, Valdis Klētnieks
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
I have a better understanding of this matter.
>> Can I draw the conclusion that continually acquiring the spinlock causes the
>> soft
>> lockup and the CPU has been stuck for 22s?
>> Can I think in this way?
>No. It's been
Hi, Valdis Klētnieks
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
I have a better understanding of this matter.
>> Can I draw the conclusion that continually acquiring the spinlock causes the
>> soft
>> lockup and the CPU has been stuck for 22s?
>> Can I think in this way?
>No. It's been
> Can I draw the conclusion that continually acquiring the spinlock causes the
> soft
> lockup and the CPU has been stuck for 22s?
> Can I think in this way?
No. It's been stuck for 22s *TRYING* and *FAILING* to get the spinlock.
For comparison - spinlocks are usually used when you need a
I see. Thank you .
Pavel Machek 于2020年7月5日周日 上午4:09写道：
>
> On Sat 2020-07-04 21:34:36, 孙世龙 sunshilong wrote:
> > Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
> >
> > >These machines are still mostly IBM-PC compatible, so it is likely to
> > >somehow work. You'll likely get worse power and
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 12:04:59PM -0400, William Tambe wrote:
> How or which function within that file translates an address to the string
> symbol+offset for the format %pS ?
%pS seems to end up in here:
static int __sprint_symbol(char *buffer, unsigned long address,
12 matches
Mail list logo
