Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI? (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.24)

Greg KH
2008-03-12T23:17:11Z

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 04:02:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > What happend in .25-rc was that we now catch these kinds of problems
> > (watching for duplicate kobjects to be registered and such.) So this
> > might have always been happening, but no warning was ever produced.
>
> It's not the warning that worries me. It's the apparent oops (keyboard
> leds blinking?) at shutdown/poweroff!

It oopses at shutdown? I thought this was originally reported as a
"will not power off" which for a while was attributed to the cpufreq fix
that went into -rc2 or -rc3.

I didn't realize there was an oops, sorry.

> > The reason we aren't shutting down is also due to the way kobjects now
> > work. If you don't clean up properly, they linger around and something
> > on the shutdown path (I haven't figured that out yet) doesn't want to
> > stop the machine.
>
> .. and that's my issue! We're too late in the game to try to figure things
> out and leave things hanging. The patch broke something, it needs to be
> fixed or reverted. It's been going on too long.
>
> I think it should have been reverted probably two weeks ago already. We
> can re-apply it early in the 2.6.26 series, and then try to fix it right.
>
> Since there is at least a patch worth trying now, I'll hold off reverting
> it and wait for Guennardi to test the patch, but the fact is, we shouldn't
> have a known-broken kernel for several weeks, when there is a known fix
> for it in reverting a single commit!
>
> We have _way_ too many regressions as it is. Regressions are bad. Ones
> that have known causes and haven't been fixed in three weeks are
> unacceptable.

Sorry, I thought this was just a warning at boot time.

It would be interesting to see if reverting the pci_bus patch did
anything about the fact that we register the root PCI bus through two
different methods.

thanks,

greg k-h