On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29:59 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > On 12 February 2013 03:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 12 February 2013 03:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> > [+cc Rafael]
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013
On 12 February 2013 03:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > [+cc Rafael]
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel J Blueman
>> > wrote:
>> > > On 11 Februar
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:50:38 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Rafael.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This looks fishy, but I wonder if Tejun has any ideas.
> >
> > Tejun, can you please have a look at the call trace below? It looks like
> > the wor
Hey, Rafael.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This looks fishy, but I wonder if Tejun has any ideas.
>
> Tejun, can you please have a look at the call trace below? It looks like
> the workqueues code is involved heavily.
> >
> > kworker/0:0/4 is trying to acq
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:18:57 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 12 February 2013 03:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> > [+cc Rafael]
> >> >
> >> > On Mon,
On 12 February 2013 03:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > [+cc Rafael]
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel J Blueman
>> > wrote:
>> > > On 11 Februar
On Monday, February 11, 2013 08:27:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Rafael]
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > > On 11 February 2013 21:03, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > >> With 3.8-rc7, when
On Monday, February 11, 2013 12:01:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Rafael]
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > On 11 February 2013 21:03, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> >> With 3.8-rc7, when unplugging the Thunderbolt ethernet adapter (bus 0a
> >> [1]) on a Macbook Pro
[+cc Rafael]
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 21:03, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> With 3.8-rc7, when unplugging the Thunderbolt ethernet adapter (bus 0a
>> [1]) on a Macbook Pro 10,1, we see the PCIe port correctly released:
>>
>> pciehp :06:03.0:
On 11 February 2013 21:03, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> With 3.8-rc7, when unplugging the Thunderbolt ethernet adapter (bus 0a
> [1]) on a Macbook Pro 10,1, we see the PCIe port correctly released:
>
> pciehp :06:03.0:pcie24: Card not present on Slot(3)
> tg3 :0a:00.0: tg3_abort_hw timed out,
With 3.8-rc7, when unplugging the Thunderbolt ethernet adapter (bus 0a
[1]) on a Macbook Pro 10,1, we see the PCIe port correctly released:
pciehp :06:03.0:pcie24: Card not present on Slot(3)
tg3 :0a:00.0: tg3_abort_hw timed out, TX_MODE_ENABLE will not
clear MAC_TX_MODE=
tg3 :
12 matches
Mail list logo