Re: 2.6.20-mm2

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-02-20T22:13:29Z

On Monday, 19 February 2007 06:13, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 18 February 2007 4:28 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:32:08 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >
>
> > > One more thing:
> > >
> > > rtc_cmos 00:02: rtc core: registered rtc_cmos as rtc0
> > > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000030 RIP:
> > > [<ffffffff804032c3>] rtc_sysfs_remove_device+0x23/0x50
> > > ...
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [<ffffffff803c5786>] class_device_del+0x86/0x180
> > > [<ffffffff803c5891>] class_device_unregister+0x11/0x20
> > > [<ffffffff8040280e>] rtc_device_unregister+0x3e/0x50
> > > [<ffffffff880cd789>] :rtc_cmos:cmos_pnp_probe+0x219/0x240
> > > [<ffffffff803988a1>] pnp_device_probe+0xa1/0xe0
> > > ...
> >
> > How did you provoke that? modprobe rtc-cmos?
>
> Plus, I'd guess, the old rtc driver statically linked.

Yes (mistakenly).

> What I see is a should-not-happen fault of some kind in a cleanup
> path that's been tested with non-PNP rtc drivers. A quick glance
> at the code left me puzzled. Would sleeping a second or two before
> calling rtc_device_unregister() change that behavior?

[tries]

No.

Greetings,
Rafael