Re: [linux-usb-devel] [usb-storage] schedule_timeout: wrong timeout value c1a95554

[Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl>]

> > > 	Happens every time I reattach usb pen drive.
> > > 
> > > usb 1-2: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 10
> > > usb 1-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
> > > scsi6 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices
> > > usb 1-2: new device found, idVendor=13fe, idProduct=1a00
> > > usb 1-2: new device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
> > > usb 1-2: Product: GEIL USB DISK   
> > > usb 1-2: Manufacturer:         
> > > usb-storage: device found at 10
> > > usb-storage: waiting for device to settle before scanning
> > > schedule_timeout: wrong timeout value c1a95554
> > >  [<c010456a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> > >  [<c010508d>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> > >  [<c01051e0>] dump_stack+0x15/0x17
> > >  [<c04174d1>] schedule_timeout+0x8c/0xa2
> > >  [<c032aeec>] usb_stor_scan_thread+0x100/0x160
> > >  [<c0127f2e>] kthread+0x36/0x58
> > >  [<c0104233>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x14
> > >  =======================
> > > scsi 6:0:0:0: Direct-Access              GEIL USB DISK    >2.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 CCS
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] 1007616 512-byte hardware sectors (516 MB)
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 23 00 00 00
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] 1007616 512-byte hardware sectors (516 MB)
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 23 00 00 00
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
> > >  sda: sda1
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI removable disk
> > > sd 6:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
> > > usb-storage: device scan complete
> > 
> > This is a known problem.  See
> > 
> > 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118641424414399&w=2
> > 
> > Rafael, has this been fixed yet?
> 
> No, I wasn't aware of it.
> 
> I think that something like the appended patch is necessary.
> 
> Mariusz, please see if that helps.

Yes - this patch fixes the bug.

Thanks,

	Mariusz



> ---
>  include/linux/freezer.h |   18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc2/include/linux/freezer.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc2.orig/include/linux/freezer.h
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2/include/linux/freezer.h
> @@ -134,28 +134,28 @@ static inline void set_freezable(void)
>  
>  #define wait_event_freezable(wq, condition)				\
>  ({									\
> -	int __ret;							\
> +	int __retval;							\
>  	do {								\
> -		__ret = wait_event_interruptible(wq, 			\
> +		__retval = wait_event_interruptible(wq, 		\
>  				(condition) || freezing(current));	\
> -		if (__ret && !freezing(current))			\
> +		if (__retval && !freezing(current))			\
>  			break;						\
>  		else if (!(condition))					\
> -			__ret = -ERESTARTSYS;				\
> +			__retval = -ERESTARTSYS;			\
>  	} while (try_to_freeze());					\
> -	__ret;								\
> +	__retval;							\
>  })
>  
>  
>  #define wait_event_freezable_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)		\
>  ({									\
> -	long __ret = timeout;						\
> +	long __retval = timeout;					\
>  	do {								\
> -		__ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq,		\
> +		__retval = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq,		\
>  				(condition) || freezing(current),	\
> -				__ret); 				\
> +				__retval); 				\
>  	} while (try_to_freeze());					\
> -	__ret;								\
> +	__retval;							\
>  })
>  #else /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
>  static inline int frozen(struct task_struct *p) { return 0; }
>