From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vegard Nossum" Subject: Re: [Bug #10724] ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:48:26 +0200 Message-ID: <19f34abd0807131348s5e211ebdk1faa5c32ef04f1cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <19f34abd0807131252k5499e6e2sc93f8cd70f488b7e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8UZD01LtfRjIaMEyM8BYvIDVLwp9PfGwBgsgQIEm0Q4=; b=D5AE2NJGy8ypdio/G0QQYr2gKpUi5Ef8txfMTDMyoAGvT80scEVmaaESAmwNlRTioc rM6hr0t58P3Sv5Ib0Xx010B1UngfT/SgEjublmyyhoTwvyFEowGZ+YCk7pui2FlYaAb7 DNuK2aFf65APImqoW6sjzrjmzUjdpR40jKL+A= In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Justin Mattock , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Alexey Starikovskiy On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> I didn't follow the discussion, but I may contribute the following information: >> >> This message first appears in my logs on May 16. That was with kernel >> version 2.6.24.5-85.fc8. The kernel I used before that was >> 2.6.24.4-64.fc8 (May 3). My logs go back to November 8 >> (2.6.23.1-42.fc8). So we can hardly consider this a regression since >> 2.6.25, but rather one since 2.6.24? >> >> (I'll also note that this message appears quite infrequently here. >> Only 42 times in 219 boot-ups. So it would be hard to bisect, but I'm >> guessing the error was introduced somewhere between 2.6.24.4 and >> 2.6.24.5.) > > You're comparing against Fedora kernels, which often contain > patches which haven't got into mainline yet. As in this case. > Unless it used to be assembled from separate pieces, there was > no "GPE storm detected" message in 2.6.24.N or 2.6.25.N: it was > added in 2.6.26-rc1. > > I sometimes see it too, on a Fujitsu-Siemens laptop. Oh, right. So what exactly is the bug here? That the message appears at all? Or is there another specific change that would cause the warning to trigger once added? Or why do we have bugzilla entries for broken hardware? Is there anything I can do to help the situation as the owner of a machine which exhibits the problem? Thanks for the info :-) Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036