On Friday, February 08, 2013 11:24:39 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock
> >
> > Commit 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu"
> >
On Friday, February 08, 2013 11:24:39 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock
Commit 73bf0fc cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link
On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock
>
> Commit 73bf0fc "cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu"
> attempted to fix a bug in __cpufreq_remove_dev() by avoiding to
> remove the
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Artem Savkov wrote:
> I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
> happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
> Viresh's patches.
Hi Artem,
I have sent another patchset (and you are in --to), please test your
On 7 February 2013 06:11, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Subject: cpufreq: Move sysfs_remove_link() from under a spinlock
Commit 73bf0fc cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy-cpu
attempted to fix a bug in __cpufreq_remove_dev()
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Artem Savkov artem.sav...@gmail.com wrote:
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
Viresh's patches.
Hi Artem,
I have sent another patchset (and you are in --to),
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:41:57AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:11:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
> > > I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
> > > happen with
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:11:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
> > I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
> > happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
> > Viresh's
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
> I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
> happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
> Viresh's patches.
Which branch from which day?
Rafael
> [ 94.908046] Disabling non-boot
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
Viresh's patches.
[ 94.908046] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
[ 94.908416] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/workqueue.c:2811
[
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
Viresh's patches.
[ 94.908046] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
[ 94.908416] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/workqueue.c:2811
[
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
Viresh's patches.
Which branch from which day?
Rafael
[ 94.908046] Disabling non-boot
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:11:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with pm-suspend). This seems to be introduced by some of the
Viresh's patches.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:41:57AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:11:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:25:13 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
I get the following BUG on suspend using systemd-sleep(this doesn't
happen with
14 matches
Mail list logo