On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:03:37 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 07:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:36:50 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On
On 06/17/2013 07:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
On 06/17/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> [...]
On 06/17/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
When it
On 06/17/2013 07:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:36:50 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/17/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:03:37 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/17/2013 07:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday,
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:39:04 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>
> >> Which sysfs interfaces do
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> [...]
> >> When it returns from
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
When it returns from unregister_hotplug_dock_device(),
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:39:04 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
>>
>> If you mean "eject", then it takes
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
>> When it returns from unregister_hotplug_dock_device(), nothing prevents it
>> from accessing whatever it wants,
On 06/16/2013 04:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
>>> Can we please relax a bit and possibly take a step back?
>>>
>>> So since your last reply to me wasn't particularly
On 06/16/2013 04:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
Can we please relax a bit and possibly take a step back?
So since your last reply to me wasn't particularly helpful, I
On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
When it returns from unregister_hotplug_dock_device(), nothing prevents it
from accessing whatever it wants, because
On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
If you mean eject, then it takes acpi_scan_lock and
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
>
> Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
>
> If you mean "eject", then it takes acpi_scan_lock and hotplug_dock_devices()
> should always be run
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> > >> This is a preparation for next patch to
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
> >> If next patch is applied without this one,
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
If next patch is applied without this one, it will
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
If you mean eject, then it takes acpi_scan_lock and hotplug_dock_devices()
should always be run under
On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
>> If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
>> as below:
>>
>> Case 1:
>> [
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
> If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
> as below:
>
> Case 1:
> [ 31.015593] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 31.018350]
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
as below:
Case 1:
[ 31.015593] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 31.018350]CPU0CPU1
[ 31.019691]
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
as below:
Case 1:
[ 31.015593] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 31.018350]CPU0CPU1
[ 31.019691]
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
as below:
Case 1:
[ 31.015593] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 31.018350]CPU0
On Sat 15 Jun 2013 06:21:02 AM CST, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 03:27:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
This is a preparation for next patch to avoid breaking bisecting.
If next patch is applied without this one, it will cause deadlock
as below:
Case 1:
[ 31.015593] Possible
32 matches
Mail list logo