On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 08:12:05AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Do you know if there is any deliberate reason Alt-SysRq-O skips
> doing a normal device shutdown work?
I would guess that it's intended for use when things are so messed up
that all you want to do is cut power ASAP. But, that's j
Sytse Wielinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:06:50AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > How does the kernel shutdown fail?
> It halts after saying 'acpi_power_off called'. Strangely, it only breaks when
> using the Alt-SysRq-O poweroff function. Shutting down normally
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:06:50AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sytse Wielinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On my box this patch breaks shutdown instead, while it was working without
> > it
> > on -rc2-mm1.
> >
> > I have an Asus A7V8X motherboard with a VIA VT8377 (KT400) north bridge
Sytse Wielinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On my box this patch breaks shutdown instead, while it was working without it
> on -rc2-mm1.
>
> I have an Asus A7V8X motherboard with a VIA VT8377 (KT400) north bridge and a
> VT8235 south bridge (according to lspci). The IO-APIC is used for interrupt
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:12:00PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Barry K. Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:12:43AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Could you try this patch on your system with acpi that
> > > is having problems.
> > >
> > > The patch
"Barry K. Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:12:43AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Could you try this patch on your system with acpi that
> > is having problems.
> >
> > The patch needs some work before it goes into a mainline kernel
> > as I have hacked the ca
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:12:43AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Could you try this patch on your system with acpi that
> is having problems.
>
> The patch needs some work before it goes into a mainline kernel
> as I have hacked the call to acpi_power_off_prepare into roughly
> the proper posi
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:40:14AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cool I wonder how many more bugs work on kexec can flush out?
BTW, I got your other e-mail with the patch. I'll see if I can try the
patch sometime in the next few hours.
> > 3. "Shutdown: hda
> > Power down."
> >
> > You (
Could you try this patch on your system with acpi that
is having problems.
The patch needs some work before it goes into a mainline kernel
as I have hacked the call to acpi_power_off_prepare into roughly
the proper position in the call chain instead of use a proper
hook. But I can't quickly find
Ok Looking at the code I have finally tracked where apci_power_off()
lives. drives/acpi/poweroff/sleep.c And it has companions in
drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c
Why I did not find this when I wall looking for things that
set pm_power_off earlier I haven't a clue because it showed up this
time.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:14:06AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Barry K. Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:35:00AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > So I will ask again, as I did when Andrew first pointed this in my
> > > direction. What code path in t
"Barry K. Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:35:00AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > So I will ask again, as I did when Andrew first pointed this in my
> > direction. What code path in the kernel could possibly care if we
> > disable the i8259 after we have disab
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:35:00AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> So I will ask again, as I did when Andrew first pointed this in my
> direction. What code path in the kernel could possibly care if we
> disable the i8259 after we have disabled all of the other hardware in
> the system.
This ma
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:32:50PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:31, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > This patch disables interrupt generation from the legacy pic on
> > > re
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:32:50PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:31, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > This patch disables interrupt generation from the legacy pic on
> > > re
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:32:50PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:31, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > This patch disables interrupt generation from the legacy pic on
> > reboot. Now that there is a sys_device class it shoul
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:31, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This patch disables interrupt generation from the legacy pic on
> reboot. Now that there is a sys_device class it should not be called
> while drivers are still using interrupts.
>
> There is
From: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch disables interrupt generation from the legacy pic on reboot. Now
that there is a sys_device class it should not be called while drivers are
still using interrupts.
There is a report about this breaking ACPI power off on some systems.
http:/
18 matches
Mail list logo
