linux-kernel - Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:39:32 +0100
From:	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
	linux acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume

Alan Jenkins wrote:
> Alexis Starikovskiy wrote:
>   
>> Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>     
>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the
>>>>>>> transaction, thus no GPE
>>>>>>> activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0.
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Ok, this is in the process context and we don't really expect to
>>>>>> get an
>>>>>> interrupt at this point, but what happens if the EC generates an
>>>>>> event that's
>>>>>> not related to any transiaction.  Is that guaranteed to never happen?
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Interrupt handler in this case can't cause a change to status
>>>>> register, thus our read of it will not be affected by interrupt.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Ok, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Alan, does the patch work for you?
>>>>
>>>> Rafael
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Yes.  Two reboot cycles, three suspend/resume cycles each, and no error
>>> message.
>>>
>>> I hope we have a better fix in mind though :-P.  The patch doesn't solve
>>> the unnecessary 500ms delay when this thing happens.
>>>       
>> Something like this?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex.
>>     
>
> You sent it as an attachment again :-).
>
> That should work, odd as it looks.  We don't need to worry about the GPE
> workaround because that's only active _inside_ the transaction.  I don't
> know what Zhao thinks is missing.
>
> Sorry I can't test right now.  I tried to install 3D support on my
> laptop for showing-off purposes, and somehow broke X.
>   
Drama over, I've now tested it.  No error messages, and the printk
timings show that it has stopped hanging for half a second.

Thanks
Alan
--
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/