From: Johannes Berg on
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 17:06 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:

> >> Does my following untested patch help?
> >
> > Sorry, no. I'll hook up a screen to the box after I return from the
> > fresh market.

> Are you sure there is no difference? :-/

No ... could be a different deadlock now :) Not sure how likely that is
though.

> Also, could you please also apply the 4 patches from Eric?
>
> You can get them here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/334

Will do.

johannes
From: Johannes Berg on
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 17:30 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:

> Hey, johannes
>
> Not sure if you made some mistake here, the one you report here [1]
> is _not_ the same with this one reported by Benjamin.
>
> Please make sure what you are talking about here is the same one.
>
> Thanks.
>
> 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/18/33

I'm talking about the problem Ben reported -- that one is completely
different. Was your patch supposed to address _that_ one?

johannes

From: Johannes Berg on
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 17:06 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Johannes Berg
> <johannes(a)sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:13 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> >
> >> Does my following untested patch help?
> >
> > Sorry, no. I'll hook up a screen to the box after I return from the
> > fresh market.
> >
>
> Are you sure there is no difference? :-/

It deadlocks after

Disabling non-boot CPUs ...

Not sure if that counts as a difference...

johannes
From: Johannes Berg on
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 12:28 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:

> It deadlocks after
>
> Disabling non-boot CPUs ...

I suspect the BUG: key not in data! thing I get now disables lockdep (it
seems to be mostly due to module loading btw) and then I don't get any
output here.

Seems it's all busted.

johannes
From: Américo Wang on
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 17:06 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Johannes Berg
>> <johannes(a)sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:13 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> >
>> >> Does my following untested patch help?
>> >
>> > Sorry, no. I'll hook up a screen to the box after I return from the
>> > fresh market.
>> >
>>
>> Are you sure there is no difference? :-/
>
>It deadlocks after
>
>Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>
>Not sure if that counts as a difference...
>

I am not sure neither...

That message is displayed before shutting down the devices.

To verify, you can add some printk() in the end of
__cpufreq_remove_dev(), or enable CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEBUG.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/