On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:42 -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Does this fix it?
Yup, both READONLY __bug_table and "extra stern" warning are gone.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> index 39e702d..aa6b202 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> +++
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:42 -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Does this fix it?
Yup, both READONLY __bug_table and "extra stern" warning are gone.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> index 39e702d..aa6b202 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> +++
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 18:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Urgh, is for some mysterious
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 18:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Urgh, is for some mysterious
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 18:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Urgh, is for some mysterious reason the __bug_table section of modules
> > > ending up in RO memory?
> >
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 18:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Urgh, is for some mysterious reason the __bug_table section of modules
> > > ending up in RO memory?
> >
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Urgh, is for some mysterious reason the __bug_table section of modules
> > ending up in RO memory?
> >
> > I forever get lost in that link magic :/
>
> +1
>
> drm.ko
>
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Urgh, is for some mysterious reason the __bug_table section of modules
> > ending up in RO memory?
> >
> > I forever get lost in that link magic :/
>
> +1
>
> drm.ko
>
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:36:08PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Ok, a network outage gave me time to go hunting. Indeed it is a bad
> > interaction with the tree DRM merged into. All DRM did was to slip a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE() that
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:36:08PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Ok, a network outage gave me time to go hunting. Indeed it is a bad
> > interaction with the tree DRM merged into. All DRM did was to slip a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE() that
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:20:01AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tobias Klausmann
> wrote:
> > The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context, see
> > below!
> >
> > With a better description:
> >
> >
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:20:01AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tobias Klausmann
> wrote:
> > The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context, see
> > below!
> >
> > With a better description:
> >
> > Tobias Klausmann
>
> I don't think it
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:36:08PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Ok, a network outage gave me time to go hunting. Indeed it is a bad
> interaction with the tree DRM merged into. All DRM did was to slip a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> things no longer
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:36:08PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Ok, a network outage gave me time to go hunting. Indeed it is a bad
> interaction with the tree DRM merged into. All DRM did was to slip a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> things no longer
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tobias Klausmann
wrote:
> The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context, see
> below!
>
> With a better description:
>
> Tobias Klausmann
I don't think it was
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tobias Klausmann
wrote:
> The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context, see
> below!
>
> With a better description:
>
> Tobias Klausmann
I don't think it was meant as a serious patch. WARN_ON_ONCE should
work. The fix isn't to remove
The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context,
see below!
With a better description:
Tobias Klausmann
On 7/14/17 5:10 PM, Karol Herbst wrote:
Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
usage we could
The conversion is a nice catch, but i'd like to have a bit more context,
see below!
With a better description:
Tobias Klausmann
On 7/14/17 5:10 PM, Karol Herbst wrote:
Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
Reviewed-By:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:10 +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
>> Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
>> usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
>
> Shooting the messenger is generally considered uncool
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:10 +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
>> Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
>> usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
>
> Shooting the messenger is generally considered uncool :)
That's
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:10 +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
> usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
Shooting the messenger is generally considered uncool :)
-Mike
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:10 +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
> usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
Shooting the messenger is generally considered uncool :)
-Mike
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:05 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> All DRM did was to slip a
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> >> things no longer warn,
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:05 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> All DRM did was to slip a
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> >> things no longer warn,
Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
Reviewed-By: Karol Herbst
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Tobias Klausmann
wrote:
> On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Yeah, we shouldn't let the machine die. Are there more WARN_ON_ONCE
usage we could convert to WARN_ONCE?
Reviewed-By: Karol Herbst
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Tobias Klausmann
wrote:
> On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
All DRM did was to slip a
WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
things no longer warn, they blow the box out of the water.
BTW, turn that irksome WARN_ON_ONCE()
On 7/14/17 3:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
All DRM did was to slip a
WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
things no longer warn, they blow the box out of the water.
BTW, turn that irksome WARN_ON_ONCE()
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> All DRM did was to slip a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> things no longer warn, they blow the box out of the water.
BTW, turn that irksome WARN_ON_ONCE() in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
into a
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 15:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> All DRM did was to slip a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() that nouveau triggers into a kernel module where such
> things no longer warn, they blow the box out of the water.
BTW, turn that irksome WARN_ON_ONCE() in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
into a
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some display stuff did change for
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+
On 7/12/17 7:19 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
Some display
On 7/12/17 7:19 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
Some display stuff did
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some display stuff did change for
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 07:37 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> >
>> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
>> > too much trouble, a bisect
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> >
>> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
>> > too much trouble, a bisect would be
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >
> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> > too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
>
> Bisection seemingly went fine, but the result
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >
> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> > too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
>
> Bisection seemingly went fine, but the result
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
Bisection seemingly went fine, but the result is odd.
e98c58e55f68f8785aebfab1f8c9a03d8de0afe1 is the first bad
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
Bisection seemingly went fine, but the result is odd.
e98c58e55f68f8785aebfab1f8c9a03d8de0afe1 is the first bad
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 20:53 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> > too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
>
> Vacation -> back to work happens in the very
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 20:53 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> > Some display stuff did change for 4.13 for GM20x+ boards. If it's not
> > too much trouble, a bisect would be pretty useful.
>
> Vacation -> back to work happens in the very
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. So in other words, a fairly standard desktop with a PCIe
> board plugged in. No funny business. (Laptops can create a ton of
> additional weirdness, which I assumed you had since you were talking
> about STR.)
Yup, garden
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 14:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. So in other words, a fairly standard desktop with a PCIe
> board plugged in. No funny business. (Laptops can create a ton of
> additional weirdness, which I assumed you had since you were talking
> about STR.)
Yup, garden
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 13:51 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
>>
>> 1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
>
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation GM204 [GeForce
>
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 13:51 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
>>
>> 1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
>
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation GM204 [GeForce
> GTX 980]
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 13:51 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
>
> 1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation GM204 [GeForce GTX
980] [10de:13c0] (rev a1)
01:00.1 Audio device [0403]: NVIDIA Corporation
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 13:51 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
>
> 1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation GM204 [GeForce GTX
980] [10de:13c0] (rev a1)
01:00.1 Audio device [0403]: NVIDIA Corporation
Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
2. What displays, if any, you have plugged into the NVIDIA board when
this happens?
3. Any boot parameters, esp relating to ACPI, PM, or related?
Cheers,
-ilia
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mike Galbraith
Some details that may be useful in analysis of the bug:
1. lspci -nn -d 10de:
2. What displays, if any, you have plugged into the NVIDIA board when
this happens?
3. Any boot parameters, esp relating to ACPI, PM, or related?
Cheers,
-ilia
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mike Galbraith
Greetings,
I met $subject in master-rt post drm merge, but taking the config
(attached) to virgin v4.12-10624-g9967468c0a10, it's reproducible.
KERNEL: vmlinux-4.12.0.g9967468-preempt.gz
DUMPFILE: vmcore
CPUS: 8
DATE: Tue Jul 11 18:55:28 2017
UPTIME: 00:02:03
LOAD
Greetings,
I met $subject in master-rt post drm merge, but taking the config
(attached) to virgin v4.12-10624-g9967468c0a10, it's reproducible.
KERNEL: vmlinux-4.12.0.g9967468-preempt.gz
DUMPFILE: vmcore
CPUS: 8
DATE: Tue Jul 11 18:55:28 2017
UPTIME: 00:02:03
LOAD
54 matches
Mail list logo