On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 06:03:30PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Mon) 28 Mar 2011 [11:52:05], Milton Miller wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 about 14:17:14 +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -0000, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > > > hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device. This > > > > > > results in a call to hvc_kick() which calls wake_up_process on a > > > > > > NULL > > > > > > pointer. > > > > > > > > > > How is hvc_open called without a hvc_driver registered to the tty > > > > > layer? > > > > > > > > This gets reproduced in a couple of scenarios, I'm trying to get more > > > > information. > > > > OK - I finally could reproduce myself, albiet it's a panic in > > hvc_open, not the one mentioned earlier. > > > > hvc_console is built into the kernel and virtio_console is a module. > > This sequence triggers a panic: > > > > - modprobe virtio_console > > - agetty /dev/hvc0 9600 vt100 > > - rmmod virtio_console > > - modprobe virtio_console > > - agetty /dev/hvc0 9600 vt100 > > > > A patch that I had sent previously, to hvc_remove() a port when the > > associated virtio_console port gets unplugged, fixes this panic. > > > > Stricter checking in hvc_open(), as you mentioned, will solve the > > other one as well. > > Care to either create this patch, or resend your original one, if you > want it applied?
Rusty has the other one queued. I pinged him about status. Amit _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev