From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965148AbXCFPew (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:34:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965150AbXCFPew (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:34:52 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:30305 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965148AbXCFPev (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:34:51 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,254,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="204697738:sNHT726479278" Message-ID: <45ED8A12.5040803@intel.com> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:34:42 -0800 From: "Kok, Auke" User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: "Kok, Auke" , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Pavel Machek , Jens Axboe , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Michal Piotrowski , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: SATA resume slowness, e1000 MSI warning References: <20070227103021.GA2250@kernel.dk> <20070227103407.GA17819@elte.hu> <20070227105922.GD2250@kernel.dk> <20070227111515.GA4271@kernel.dk> <20070301093450.GA8508@elte.hu> <20070302100704.GB2293@elf.ucw.cz> <20070305084257.GA4464@mellanox.co.il> <20070305101120.GA23032@elte.hu> <45ECFC5F.7000102@garzik.org> <45ED0BBF.1050000@intel.com> <20070306090444.GA25409@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070306090444.GA25409@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2007 15:34:44.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7415C60:01C76004] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Kok, Auke wrote: > >>>> BUG: at drivers/pci/msi.c:611 pci_enable_msi() > >>> I would poke Eric Biederman(sp?) about this one. Maybe its even >>> solved by the MSI-enable-related patch he posted in the past 24-48 >>> hours. >> I tried the 3-patch series "[PATCH 0/3] Basic msi bug fixes.." and >> they fix this problem for me. Were you expecting the OOPS in the first >> place? [...] > > the bug was the warning message (a WARN_ON()) above - not an oops. So > that warning message is gone in your testing? yes. Auke