On 8 February 2013 00:48, wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:11:52 +0530, Viresh Kumar said:
>
>> First of all i want to confirm something about your system. I am sure it is a
>> multi-policy system (or multi cluster system). i.e. there are more than one
>> clock line for different cpus ? And so mul
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:11:52 +0530, Viresh Kumar said:
> First of all i want to confirm something about your system. I am sure it is a
> multi-policy system (or multi cluster system). i.e. there are more than one
> clock line for different cpus ? And so multiple struct policy exist
> simultaneousl
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:44:35 PM Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
>> Seen in dmesg. next-20130128 was OK. Haven't done a bisect, but can
>> do so if the offender isn't obvious...
>
> I suppose this is 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysf
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 02:12:17 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 07:55:58 PM valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:24:39 +0100, "Rafael J. Wysocki" said:
> > > On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:44:35 PM Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> > > > Seen i
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 07:55:58 PM valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:24:39 +0100, "Rafael J. Wysocki" said:
> > On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:44:35 PM Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> > > Seen in dmesg. next-20130128 was OK. Haven't done a bisect, but can
> > > do so i
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:24:39 +0100, "Rafael J. Wysocki" said:
> On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:44:35 PM Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> > Seen in dmesg. next-20130128 was OK. Haven't done a bisect, but can
> > do so if the offender isn't obvious...
>
> I suppose this is 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remov
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:44:35 PM Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Seen in dmesg. next-20130128 was OK. Haven't done a bisect, but can
> do so if the offender isn't obvious...
I suppose this is 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu".
Can you test the linux-pm.git/pm-cpufre
Seen in dmesg. next-20130128 was OK. Haven't done a bisect, but can
do so if the offender isn't obvious...
[2.567662] netconsole: network logging started
[2.581661] [ cut here ]
[2.581670] WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:536 sysfs_add_one+0x91/0xa5()
[2.581673]
8 matches
Mail list logo