acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Marc Burkhardt]

Hi there,
I noticed, that 'acpitool -e' doesn't work any longer sind I upgraded to 3.17.
The tool stalls at

   Device       S-state   Status   Sysfs node
  ---------------------------------------
  1. LID          S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0D:00
  2. SLPB         S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0E:0

Before there were 11 entries shown.

Can I help investigate it?

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Burkhardt

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Marc Burkhardt]

* Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> [2014-10-09 21:04:06 +0200]:

Just another note: the process uses 100% CPU while 'waiting' for further data it
seems...

strace shows nothing suspicious.

Thanks,
Marc

> Hi there,
> I noticed, that 'acpitool -e' doesn't work any longer sind I upgraded to 3.17.
> The tool stalls at
> 
>    Device       S-state   Status   Sysfs node
>   ---------------------------------------
>   1. LID          S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0D:00
>   2. SLPB         S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0E:0
> 
> Before there were 11 entries shown.
> 
> Can I help investigate it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Marc
> 
> -- 
> Marc Burkhardt

-- 
Marc Burkhardt

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Frans Klaver]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
> Hi there,
> I noticed, that 'acpitool -e' doesn't work any longer sind I upgraded to 3.17.
> The tool stalls at
>
>    Device       S-state   Status   Sysfs node
>   ---------------------------------------
>   1. LID          S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0D:00
>   2. SLPB         S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0E:0

I see the same thing.

Frans

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Frans Klaver]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> I noticed, that 'acpitool -e' doesn't work any longer sind I upgraded to 3.17.
>> The tool stalls at
>>
>>    Device       S-state   Status   Sysfs node
>>   ---------------------------------------
>>   1. LID          S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0D:00
>>   2. SLPB         S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0E:0
>
> I see the same thing.

With which kernel version did it last work properly for you?

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Marc Burkhardt]

I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/

Thanks,
Marc

Am 9. Oktober 2014 21:31:52 MESZ, schrieb Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>:
>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org>
>wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> I noticed, that 'acpitool -e' doesn't work any longer sind I
>upgraded to 3.17.
>>> The tool stalls at
>>>
>>>    Device       S-state   Status   Sysfs node
>>>   ---------------------------------------
>>>   1. LID          S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0D:00
>>>   2. SLPB         S3    *enabled   platform:PNP0C0E:0
>>
>> I see the same thing.
>
>With which kernel version did it last work properly for you?

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Frans Klaver]

Hi,

Please put your replies below the relevant quote.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
> I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/

If you still have the 3.12 kernel around, could you test if acpitool
-e worked there?

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Marc Burkhardt]

>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org>
>wrote:
>> I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to
>a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/
>
>If you still have the 3.12 kernel around, could you test if acpitool
>-e worked there?

Let me ask you a question: does it make sense to test 3.12 again because you know there's something changed regarding /proc/acpi/... or because it's the kernel I broke up on upgrading? 

I could compile one, sure. But I have no time to actually 'bisect' this... unfortunately.

Thanks for your support,
Marc

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Frans Klaver]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org>
>>wrote:
>>> I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to
>>a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/
>>
>>If you still have the 3.12 kernel around, could you test if acpitool
>>-e worked there?
>
> Let me ask you a question: does it make sense to test 3.12 again because you know there's something changed regarding /proc/acpi/... or because it's the kernel I broke up on upgrading?

Never mind. It broke after 3.14. I'll bisect.

Frans

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Chuck Ebbert]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:16:11 +0200
Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>> I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to
> >>a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/
> >>
> >>If you still have the 3.12 kernel around, could you test if acpitool
> >>-e worked there?
> >
> > Let me ask you a question: does it make sense to test 3.12 again because you know there's something changed regarding /proc/acpi/... or because it's the kernel I broke up on upgrading?
> 
> Never mind. It broke after 3.14. I'll bisect.
> 

The below patch fixes it for me. Looks like the line sizes changed
and some are now exactly the right length to make it loop forever
reading /proc/acpi/wakeup:


--- a/src/acpitool.cpp
+++ b/src/acpitool.cpp
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ int Do_Fan_Info(int verbose)
 int Show_WakeUp_Devices(int verbose)
 {
     ifstream file_in;
-    char *filename, str[40];
+    char *filename, str[80];
     
     filename = "/proc/acpi/wakeup";
     
@@ -438,13 +438,13 @@ int Show_WakeUp_Devices(int verbose)
     }
     else
     {
-	file_in.getline(str, 40);           // first line are just headers //
+	file_in.getline(str, 80);           // first line are just headers //
 	cout<<"   "<<str<<endl;
 	cout<<"  ---------------------------------------"<<endl;
         int t = 1;
 	while(!file_in.eof())
 	{
-	    file_in.getline(str, 40);
+	    file_in.getline(str, 80);
 	    if (strlen(str)!=0)                     // avoid printing last empty line //
 	    {
 		cout<<"  "<<t<<". "<<str<<endl;

Re: acpitool - /proc/acpi/wakeup

[Frans Klaver]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:16:11 +0200
> Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Marc Burkhardt <marc@osknowledge.org>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>> I upgraded from 3.10 on that machine. 3.12 didn't work for me due to
>> >>a hibernation bug. The rest was left out...  :/
>> >>
>> >>If you still have the 3.12 kernel around, could you test if acpitool
>> >>-e worked there?
>> >
>> > Let me ask you a question: does it make sense to test 3.12 again because you know there's something changed regarding /proc/acpi/... or because it's the kernel I broke up on upgrading?
>>
>> Never mind. It broke after 3.14. I'll bisect.
>>
>
> The below patch fixes it for me. Looks like the line sizes changed
> and some are now exactly the right length to make it loop forever
> reading /proc/acpi/wakeup:
>
>
> --- a/src/acpitool.cpp
> +++ b/src/acpitool.cpp
> @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ int Do_Fan_Info(int verbose)
>  int Show_WakeUp_Devices(int verbose)
>  {
>      ifstream file_in;
> -    char *filename, str[40];
> +    char *filename, str[80];
>
>      filename = "/proc/acpi/wakeup";
>
> @@ -438,13 +438,13 @@ int Show_WakeUp_Devices(int verbose)
>      }
>      else
>      {
> -       file_in.getline(str, 40);           // first line are just headers //
> +       file_in.getline(str, 80);           // first line are just headers //
>         cout<<"   "<<str<<endl;
>         cout<<"  ---------------------------------------"<<endl;
>          int t = 1;
>         while(!file_in.eof())
>         {
> -           file_in.getline(str, 40);
> +           file_in.getline(str, 80);
>             if (strlen(str)!=0)                     // avoid printing last empty line //
>             {
>                 cout<<"  "<<t<<". "<<str<<endl;

Oh my. Why not use the std::string version of getline?

I doubt we should count this as "breaking userspace"..