On Friday, 12 October 2007 01:27, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
> >>> The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
> >>>
> >>> dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm:
On Friday, 12 October 2007 01:27, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the dmesg the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 apm: overridden by ACPI.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
>>> The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
>>>
>>> dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm: overridden by ACPI.
>>>
>>> dmesg, APM on, has no line > apm:
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:42, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
> >> The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
> >>
> >> dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm: overridden by ACPI.
> >>
> >> dmesg, APM on, has no line > apm:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > And I think I see the problem: it's a config change. You don't have
> > PM_LEGACY enabled. Your config file diff shows:
> >
> >-CONFIG_PM_LEGACY=y
> >+# CONFIG_PM_LEGACY is not set
> >
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm: overridden by ACPI.
dmesg, APM on, has no line > apm: overridden by ACPI.
Ok, this is the real reason.
The APM code does:
if
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
>
> The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the "dmesg" the file is attached:
>
> dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 > apm: overridden by ACPI.
>
> dmesg, APM on, has no line > apm: overridden by ACPI.
Ok, this is the real reason.
The APM code does:
if
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the dmesg the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 apm: overridden by ACPI.
dmesg, APM on, has no line apm: overridden by ACPI.
Ok, this is the real reason.
The APM code does:
if (PM_IS_ACTIVE()) {
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the dmesg the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 apm: overridden by ACPI.
dmesg, APM on, has no line apm: overridden by ACPI.
Ok, this is the real reason.
The APM code does:
if
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
And I think I see the problem: it's a config change. You don't have
PM_LEGACY enabled. Your config file diff shows:
-CONFIG_PM_LEGACY=y
+# CONFIG_PM_LEGACY is not set
I suspect we
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:42, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the dmesg the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 apm: overridden by ACPI.
dmesg, APM on, has no line apm: overridden by ACPI.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
The last kernel I used was 6.2.22 the dmesg the file is attached:
dmesg 2.6.22 line 158 apm: overridden by ACPI.
dmesg, APM on, has no line apm: overridden by ACPI.
Ok,
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
>
> Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
Sure. And Milton and Olof have figured out what the problem is and
proposed patches to fix it.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
We did have some APM *detection* changes, and maybe APM wasn't even
detected for you before, or it was detected differently. That would be due
to the bootup changes, I'm Cc'ing Peter Anvin (and the kernel mailing
list, in case somebody else see a pattern to this).
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
>
> I don't own a digital camera but I did jot the info down by hand.
Heh, yeah, that's what I used to do too (and still do if a camera isn't
handy).
> Call Trace:
> [] apm_bios_call_simple+0x92/0x110
> [] acpi_hw_clear_gpe_block+00/0x32
> []
On Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:06, Milton Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 9 2007 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
> >>
> >> Well, the ppc oops
On Tue, Oct 9 2007 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
>>
>> Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
>>
>> If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the
On Tue, Oct 9 2007 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does
On Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:06, Milton Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9 2007 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Kevin wrote:
I don't own a digital camera but I did jot the info down by hand.
Heh, yeah, that's what I used to do too (and still do if a camera isn't
handy).
Call Trace:
[c010e852] apm_bios_call_simple+0x92/0x110
[c0285a0] acpi_hw_clear_gpe_block+00/0x32
[c010e8ec]
Linus Torvalds wrote:
We did have some APM *detection* changes, and maybe APM wasn't even
detected for you before, or it was detected differently. That would be due
to the bootup changes, I'm Cc'ing Peter Anvin (and the kernel mailing
list, in case somebody else see a pattern to this).
Linus Torvalds writes:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
Sure. And Milton and Olof have figured out what the problem is and
proposed patches to fix it.
However, I'm
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Fair enough. OTOH for the affected PPC users it's a regression and that's
> what I'm concerned of.
Hmm.. I just got the appended (Kevin, better not just send me email, other
people can be interested too):
From: Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:27:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
>
> Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
>
> If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
>
> Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
>
> If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does nothing. And if it is
>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:21:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > From: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> >
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does nothing. And if it is
defined, I don't see why/how ppc can validly oops. So I think the
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > From: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
> > >
> > > We
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > From: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
> >
> > We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> From: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
>
> We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU (usually 0) before
> attempting to power-off modern SMP machines. This fixes
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
From: Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU (usually 0) before
attempting to power-off modern SMP machines. This fixes the
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
From: Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU (usually 0)
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
From: Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
We need to disable all
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:21:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:17:02AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:06:33AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
From: Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does nothing. And if it is
defined, I don't see why/how ppc can validly oops. So I think the
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does nothing. And if it is
defined, I don't
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:27:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Wrapping it into a #ifdef CONFIG_X86 would be sufficient.
Well, the ppc oops seems to be a ppc bug regardless.
If CPU_HOTPLUG isn't defined, the thing does nothing. And if it
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Fair enough. OTOH for the affected PPC users it's a regression and that's
what I'm concerned of.
Hmm.. I just got the appended (Kevin, better not just send me email, other
people can be interested too):
From: Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject:
From: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU (usually 0) before
attempting to power-off modern SMP machines. This fixes the
hang-on-poweroff issue on my MythTV SMP box, and also on Thomas
From: Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit 4047727e5ae33f9b8d2b7766d1994ea6e5ec2991 from upstream
We need to disable all CPUs other than the boot CPU (usually 0) before
attempting to power-off modern SMP machines. This fixes the
hang-on-poweroff issue on my MythTV SMP box, and also on Thomas
40 matches
Mail list logo
