From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6163B70A6 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:36:33 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: PROBLEM: memory corrupting bug, bisected to 6dda9d55 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: pacman@kosh.dhis.org In-Reply-To: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> References: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:32:16 +1100 Message-ID: <1287570736.2198.19.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Mel Gorman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:23 -0500, pacman@kosh.dhis.org wrote: > The diff fragment above applied inside prom_close_stdin, but there are > some > prom_printf calls after prom_close_stdin. Calling prom_printf after > closing > stdout sounds like it could be bad. If I moved it down below all the > prom_printf's, it would be after the "quiesce" call. Would that be > acceptable > (or even interesting as an experiment)? Does a close need a quiesce > after it? Just try :-) "quiesce" is something that afaik only apple ever implemented anyways. It uses hooks inside their OF to shut down all drivers that do bus master (among other HW sanitization tasks). Cheers, Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752911Ab0JTKgg (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:36:36 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:41814 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751145Ab0JTKgf (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:36:35 -0400 Subject: Re: PROBLEM: memory corrupting bug, bisected to 6dda9d55 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: pacman@kosh.dhis.org Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> References: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:32:16 +1100 Message-ID: <1287570736.2198.19.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:23 -0500, pacman@kosh.dhis.org wrote: > The diff fragment above applied inside prom_close_stdin, but there are > some > prom_printf calls after prom_close_stdin. Calling prom_printf after > closing > stdout sounds like it could be bad. If I moved it down below all the > prom_printf's, it would be after the "quiesce" call. Would that be > acceptable > (or even interesting as an experiment)? Does a close need a quiesce > after it? Just try :-) "quiesce" is something that afaik only apple ever implemented anyways. It uses hooks inside their OF to shut down all drivers that do bus master (among other HW sanitization tasks). Cheers, Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C036B6B00A6 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: PROBLEM: memory corrupting bug, bisected to 6dda9d55 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> References: <20101020032345.5240.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:32:16 +1100 Message-ID: <1287570736.2198.19.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: pacman@kosh.dhis.org Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:23 -0500, pacman@kosh.dhis.org wrote: > The diff fragment above applied inside prom_close_stdin, but there are > some > prom_printf calls after prom_close_stdin. Calling prom_printf after > closing > stdout sounds like it could be bad. If I moved it down below all the > prom_printf's, it would be after the "quiesce" call. Would that be > acceptable > (or even interesting as an experiment)? Does a close need a quiesce > after it? Just try :-) "quiesce" is something that afaik only apple ever implemented anyways. It uses hooks inside their OF to shut down all drivers that do bus master (among other HW sanitization tasks). Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org