On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> (Resending full details as I can't find my previous mail in the archives.)
>
> On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > In general 2.6.25 if looking quite good on my desktop, but there's one
> > important issue: the system no lon
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > In general 2.6.25 if looking quite good on my desktop, but there's
> > > one important issue: the system no longer powers off after shutdow
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:45:09 +0100 Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Symptom is that the system shuts down normally and completely, it just does
> not power off.
I've been struggling with an identically-manifesting regression on one of
my test machines for a week. It's due to softlockup ch
On Feb 13, 2008 3:54 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:45:09 +0100 Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Symptom is that the system shuts down normally and completely, it just does
> > not power off.
>
> I've been struggling with an identically-manifesting r
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, you wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:45:09 +0100 Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Symptom is that the system shuts down normally and completely, it just
> > does not power off.
>
> I've been struggling with an identically-manifesting regression on one of
> my t
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > In general 2.6.25 if looking quite good on my desktop, but there's
> > > one important issue: the system no longer powers off after shutdow
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > In general 2.6.25 if looking quite good on my desktop, but there's
> > >
On Wednesday, 13 of February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > > In general 2
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > So, just on the off chance, I applied the patch below and bingo, the
> > system powers off again. I doubt this will be the correct solution, but
> > just in case it is, here's my signed off. A comment why the double put
> > is needed would probably
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > On Monday 11 February 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
* Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after disable cpufreq, i got
>
> ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S5
> Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU1
> CPU 1 is now offline
> CPU1 is down
> kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU2
> CPU 2 is now offline
> =
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > after disable cpufreq, i got
> >
> > ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S5
> > Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU1
> > CPU 1 is
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > after disable cpufreq, i got
> >
> > ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S5
> > Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU1
> > CPU 1 is
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > after disable cpufreq, i got
> > >
> > > ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 03:38:13PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 03:38:13PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 07:55:53PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 of February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ugh, sorry, I was mistaken, it's not a cpufreq issue, it's a
> CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP issue. Or that is what I was told before.
>
could be two issues:
one in cpufreq, and one in detect softlockup...
YH
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I swear someone else sent this in, but my archives don't show it at all.
> I think the patch below should solve this, but I need someone to test it.
I tested but it doesn't fix the problem for me. May be my problem is
differen
On Friday 15 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> I swear someone sent this patch in before. Can you try this one below,
> there seems to be an imbalance with kobject_get and _put.
I did remember seeing this patch before [1] and can confirm that it does
indeed fix the issue: with this patch applied t
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > I swear someone sent this patch in before. Can you try this one below,
> > there seems to be an imbalance with kobject_get and _put.
>
> I did remember seeing this patch before
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > I swear someone sent this patch in before. Can you try this one below,
> > > there seems to be
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 04:52:18PM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I swear someone else sent this in, but my archives don't show it at all.
> > I think the patch below should solve this, but I need someone to test it.
>
> I tested
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:19:20AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 15 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > I swear someone sent this patch in before. Can you try this one below,
> > there seems to be an imbalance with kobject_get and _put.
>
> I did remember seeing this patch before [1] and can
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:41:43AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ugh, sorry, I was mistaken, it's not a cpufreq issue, it's a
> > CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP issue. Or that is what I was told before.
> >
>
> could be two is
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:38:59AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 February 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > I swear someone sent this patch in before. Can you try this one below,
> > > there seems to be an imbalance wit
26 matches
Mail list logo
