[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218769772.3209.46.camel@rzhang-dt>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:09:32 +0800
From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 04:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:38:28AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> calling param_sysfs_init+0x0/0x1e7
> >> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:463 sysfs_add_one+0x35/0x3d()
> >> sysfs: duplicate filename 'acpi' can not be created
> >
> > Why would this be a sysfs error, it's acpi doing something foolish,
> > that's why the sysfs layer is warning about it :)
>
> The NULL pointer reference further down actually looks like something
> foolish in the sysfs layer. But actually ACPI is not doing
> anything wrong here I think. According to the backtrace it happens
> when a kernel param (aka module_param) is set. And creating multiple
> params in the same acpi space is completely legal.
>
> It looks more like the high level code that sets up these parameters
> broke somehow and starts registering these twice and now ACPI is the
> first one to hit it (maybe because it starts with 'a' :-).
Perhaps we could try "acpi=off" and see if it still happens.
thanks,
rui
--
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