[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYxiDA25Yb+csWWgXMmJuKMMTNVbdF+2JUnsSrXQpYysQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:55:10 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> I don't really know if this is the right solution at all, so please
>>> help me out here... if you want that patch I can send it once
>>> I understand this properly.
>
> IIRC, recent kernels didn't return 0 or any error code when the !policy
> condition was matched. So can you check whether this problem occurs with
> 3.11 or 3.10 as well?
v3.11 works fine.
The problem is not what it returns, the system seems to survive no matter
whether it returns 0 or 17 or whatever.
The problem is that sometimes in the v3.12 kernel cycle we got a
BUG() crash instead of some random value back for calling early.
> So I think we should first identify (bisect?) and understand what caused that
> particular change and then we will be in a position to evaluate whether the
> patch you proposed would be the right fix or not.
I'll see if I can get a bisect going, the problem is that I upload the
kernel over the serial port so this isn't a very quick procedure :-(
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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