From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Fastboot] Fw: Problems with reboot/poweroff on SMP machine Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:22:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20050726002258.1591de62.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050725142951.6d47ca32.akpm@osdl.org> <42E5B533.60107@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Eric W. Biederman" , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, "Brown, Len" Cc: mmokrejs-FKSC99mem8wheYDy1lqhK0JFmxxWawaa@public.gmane.org, sjordet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, fastboot-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, zlatko.calusic-2lF7rBilFQQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-xyiX3/p4JzBDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (Added acpi people) ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) writes: >=20 > > Martin MOKREJ___ writes: > > > >> Hi Eric, > >> I don't know if I was epxected to test this right away, but > >> I just tried over acpi patched sources on my i686: > > > > Thanks. That is my bug.=20 > > > > I knew the code wasn't quite right but I missed how off it > > was :) > > > > Just remove the BUG_ON(!shutdown_prepared) line and it should > > compile. I don't know why I though I could read a static > > variable in another function... >=20 > I am now officially confused. My patch might clean up a corner > case or two but it really should not help, because the issue > I was worried about is mostly fixed. >=20 > All of the pieces are there for the acpi power off case to work > correctly so is beginning to look like a completely different bug > then what I am suspecting. Anyone who can testing of my patch > would be a help. >=20 > The only other interesting data point I can think of at the moment > is the attached patch below. =20 >=20 > I want to know if acpi_power_off is having problems because interrupts > get disabled. I have a vague feeling that adding local_irq_disable() to acpi_power_off() is illegal. void acpi_power_off(void) { printk("%s called\n", __FUNCTION__); local_irq_disable(); acpi_enter_sleep_state(ACPI_STATE_S5); } Can an ACPI person please comment? > Eric >=20 > diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/i8259.c b/arch/i386/kernel/i8259.c > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/i8259.c > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/i8259.c > @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ static struct sysdev_class i8259_sysdev_ > set_kset_name("i8259"), > .suspend =3D i8259A_suspend, > .resume =3D i8259A_resume, > - .shutdown =3D i8259A_shutdown, > +// .shutdown =3D i8259A_shutdown, > }; >=20 > static struct sys_device device_i8259A =3D { ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click