On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:29:39AM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> From 18fa0f55b764ad0fe5fc49f81bae281e5110ed56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Henrik Rydberg
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:15:03 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] hwmon: (applesmc) Always read until end of data
>
> The crash reported and inve
Hi Guenter,
> > I want to make one more test tomorrow, then I'll send a proper patch.
> > Thanks!
> >
> Ok, great.
And here it is, with compiler warning fixed.
Thanks everybody,
Henrik
>From 18fa0f55b764ad0fe5fc49f81bae281e5110ed56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Henrik Rydberg
Date: Wed, 2 O
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:29:17PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> > > > So, what should we do with this patch ? Apply it ?
> > >
> > > So far I'm getting nothing on the original machine. As of today it's
> > > applied as the last patch on 3.12.0-0.rc4.git0.1.fc20.x86_64.
> > > U
Hi Guenter,
> > > So, what should we do with this patch ? Apply it ?
> >
> > So far I'm getting nothing on the original machine. As of today it's
> > applied as the last patch on 3.12.0-0.rc4.git0.1.fc20.x86_64. Unfortunately
> > at the moment I'm a bit too dense to figure out how to get a new
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:46:55PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On 10/02/2013 10:24 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >
> >>> From 4451da32414080bd0563ee9e061f19bf90463cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Henrik Rydberg
> >> Date: Wed, 2 Oc
On Oct 7, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 10:24 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>
>>> From 4451da32414080bd0563ee9e061f19bf90463cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Henrik Rydberg
>> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:15:03 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] applesmc remedy take 2
>>
>> Conjec
On 10/02/2013 10:24 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
From 4451da32414080bd0563ee9e061f19bf90463cc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Henrik Rydberg
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:15:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] applesmc remedy take 2
Conjectured problem: there are remnant bytes ready on the data line
which corr
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:34:41PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:33:00PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:24:10PM +020
On Oct 2, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:33:00PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Guente
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:33:00PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:34:18PM +
On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:34:18PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>>> One thing I have seen in all logs is t
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:34:18PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > > > >>One thing I have seen in all logs is the earlier "send_byte fail"
> > > > >>message, so
> >
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:34:18PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > > >>One thing I have seen in all logs is the earlier "send_byte fail"
> > > >>message, so
> > > >>I think that is a pre-requisite.
> > > >
> > > >Not necessarily - i
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:34:18PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > >>One thing I have seen in all logs is the earlier "send_byte fail"
> > >>message, so
> > >>I think that is a pre-requisite.
> > >
> > >Not necessarily - it could be that the patch actually fixes the root
> > >cause. One possible
> >>One thing I have seen in all logs is the earlier "send_byte fail" message,
> >>so
> >>I think that is a pre-requisite.
> >
> >Not necessarily - it could be that the patch actually fixes the root
> >cause. One possible scenario is that on recent SMCs, some of the
> >commands produce more data t
On 10/02/2013 02:53 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
Patch added on top of 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 and built. But after
~dozen reboots, I'm not triggering the problem. The only items in dmesg with
smc in it:
[ 13.799819] applesmc: key=261 fan=2 temp=14 index=14 acc=1 lux=2 kbd=1
[ 13.8334
> > Patch added on top of 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 and built. But after
> > ~dozen reboots, I'm not triggering the problem. The only items in dmesg
> > with smc in it:
> >
> > [ 13.799819] applesmc: key=261 fan=2 temp=14 index=14 acc=1 lux=2 kbd=1
> > [ 13.833402] input: applesmc as
On 10/01/2013 08:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Oct 1, 2013, at
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck w
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +020
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.gi
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64.
>
> [ 10.886016] applesmc:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > >Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64.
> > >
> > >[ 10.886016] applesmc: key count changed from 261 to 1174405121
> > >
> >
> > Explains the crash, but the new key count is very wrong. 1174405121 =
> >
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64.
[ 10.886016] applesmc: key count changed from 261 to 1174405121
>>>
>>> Explains the crash,
> >Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64.
> >
> >[ 10.886016] applesmc: key count changed from 261 to 1174405121
> >
>
> Explains the crash, but the new key count is very wrong. 1174405121 =
> 0x4601.
> Which I guess explains the subsequent memory allocation error i
On 09/30/2013 06:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/27/2013 11:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:41:42AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guent
On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/27/2013 11:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:41:42AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
On 09/27/2013 11:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:41:42AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 201
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The
>> key cache
>> is allocated only onc
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:41:42AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >> > > This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The
> >> > > key cache
> >> > > is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each
> >> >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:41:42AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg
> >> wrote:
> >> This suggests that initialization may
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >> > > This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The
> >> > > key cache
> >> > > is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each
> >> >
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> > > This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The
>> > > key cache
>> > > is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each attempt.
>> > >
>> > > No idea if that can happen, but if the number of keys
> >Yes - I agree that the error state is far-fetched, but it is hard to
> >see any other logical explanation. There is of course always the
> >possibility that the problem is somewhere else completely.
> >
> There are also ACPI conflicts in each of the bug reports I looked at.
> Can this play a rol
> Applied. I'll run my sanity tests before I send it upstream.
> I'll also Cc: stable.
Great.
> Interesting is that this started to happen with 3.10, even though
> I did not find any relevant changes in the driver. Is it possible that
> changed boot timing (ie reduced boot time) exposes this prob
On 09/25/2013 11:34 PM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The key cache
is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each attempt.
No idea if that can happen, but if the number of keys can increase after
the first initializatio
On 09/25/2013 11:34 PM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The key cache
is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each attempt.
No idea if that can happen, but if the number of keys can increase after
the first initializatio
> > > This suggests that initialization may be attempted more than once. The
> > > key cache
> > > is allocated only once, but the number of keys is read for each attempt.
> > >
> > > No idea if that can happen, but if the number of keys can increase after
> > > the first initialization attempt y
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:48:07PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:56:28PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:06:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Chris has reported[1] an issue with the applesmc driver in the 3.10
> > > and 3
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:56:28PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:06:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Chris has reported[1] an issue with the applesmc driver in the 3.10
> > and 3.11 kernels. This seems to be a bit transient, but the oops is
> > consiste
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:06:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Chris has reported[1] an issue with the applesmc driver in the 3.10
> and 3.11 kernels. This seems to be a bit transient, but the oops is
> consistent across those releases. This is with a MacBook Pro 4,1.
> The backtrace
Hi All,
Chris has reported[1] an issue with the applesmc driver in the 3.10
and 3.11 kernels. This seems to be a bit transient, but the oops is
consistent across those releases. This is with a MacBook Pro 4,1.
The backtrace is below.
Any ideas on this one?
josh
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com
43 matches
Mail list logo
