[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080531235416.GA7909@colo.lackof.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 17:54:16 -0600
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Cc: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH for [Bug 8952] tulip driver oops in tulip_interrupt when
hibernating with swsusp/suspend2
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:09:35PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Grant Grundler wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> The following patch is seems to fix the tulip suspend/resume panic:
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8952#c46
>> My attempts at a cleaner patch failed and Pavel thinks this is OK.
>> Since suspend/resume is getting an overhaul in 2.6.27 (per comment
>> #49 by Rafael J. Wysocki), it makes sense to invest more time as
>> part of that rework and apply the known fix to 2.6.26.
>> hth,
>> grant
>> Original from: kernelbugs@....homeip.net
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
>> b/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
>> index f9d13fa..088d3bf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
>> @@ -1729,12 +1729,15 @@ static int tulip_suspend (struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> pm_message_t state)
>> if (!dev)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (netif_running(dev))
>> - tulip_down(dev);
>> + if (!netif_running(dev))
>> + goto save_state:
>> +
>> + tulip_down(dev);
>
> how could this be tested if it doesn't even compile?
> Oh well, seems sane, let's see...
Thanks for fixing up the : vs ; and applying.
Is there a canonical description of what suspend/resume has to do?
As noted in the bug report, the NIC drivers are very inconsistent
in what they do in these routines.
thanks,
grant
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists