[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808121629.53425.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:29:52 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m.s.tsirkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Remove WARN_ON from device_pm_add
On Tuesday, 12 of August 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 01:05:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > PM: Remove WARN_ON from device_pm_add
> >
> > Fix message in device_pm_add() saying that the device will not be
> > added to dpm_list, although in fact the device is going to be added
> > to the list regardless of the ordering violation.
> >
> > Remove the WARN_ON(true) triggered in that situation, because it is
> > hit by USB very often and spams the users' logs.
> >
> > This patch fixes bug #11263
>
> Michael Tsirkin said in #11284 (which is marked as a duplicate of #11263):
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> > What exactly is this instability?
>
> X often crashes on resume, sometimes ACPI seems to stop working
> after resume. I am trying to figure exact way to reproduce first,
> or get some relevant logs, then I'll report.
>
> > Does 2.6.26 work fine?
>
> yes
>
> <-- snip -->
>
>
> Is this a separate regression or did the WARN_ON different from the
> first assumption indicate a functional regression?
No, it doesn't indicate a functional regression.
In 2.6.26 the WARN_ON() was artificially silenced by USB, but that stopped
working after the PM core had changed in 2.6.27-rc.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists