Re: 2.6.25-rc8-mm2

Andrew Morton
2008-04-12T06:07:59Z

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:53:59 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:33:54 PDT, Andrew Morton said:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc8/2.6.25-rc8-mm2/
>
> Was in the middle of a bisection chasing a different problem, and hit this
> pair of warnings. 'quilt top' at the time was remove-div_long_long_rem.patch

yup, remove-div_long_long_rem.patch is a "good" bisection point (one with
no known fixes against it).

> (in other words, very nearly all of rc8-mm2 was applied). Feel free to delete
> if it's known-fixed in one of the last 100 or so patches. ;)
>
> [ 0.060389] ACPI: Core revision 20070126
> [ 0.069072] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 0.069077] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/genapic_64.c:86 read_apic_id+0x41/0x7c()
> [ 0.069084] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.069090] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc8 #5
> [ 0.069094]
> [ 0.069095] Call Trace:
> [ 0.069104] [<ffffffff8023d4fe>] warn_on_slowpath+0x67/0xb7
> [ 0.069113] [<ffffffff8021f12d>] ? __cpus_weight+0x4b/0x68
> [ 0.069118] [<ffffffff80225591>] read_apic_id+0x41/0x7c
> [ 0.069126] [<ffffffff80729d84>] verify_local_APIC+0xb4/0x177
> [ 0.069132] [<ffffffff80728a81>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x247/0x383
> [ 0.069140] [<ffffffff8071d712>] kernel_init+0x69/0x29c
> [ 0.069148] [<ffffffff8057908a>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x43/0x62
> [ 0.069156] [<ffffffff80237516>] ? finish_task_switch+0x3e/0xb4
> [ 0.069163] [<ffffffff8020d5f8>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
> [ 0.069994] [<ffffffff803b8237>] ? acpi_ds_init_one_object+0x0/0xb1
> [ 0.070000] [<ffffffff8071d6a9>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x29c
> [ 0.070006] [<ffffffff8020d5ee>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x12
> [ 0.070010]
> [ 0.070019] ---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a725 ]---
> [ 0.070024] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 0.070028] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/genapic_64.c:86 read_apic_id+0x41/0x7c()
> [ 0.070034] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.070039] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Tainted: G W 2.6.25-rc8 #5
> [ 0.070043]
> [ 0.070044] Call Trace:
> [ 0.070049] [<ffffffff8023d4fe>] warn_on_slowpath+0x67/0xb7
> [ 0.070056] [<ffffffff8021f12d>] ? __cpus_weight+0x4b/0x68
> [ 0.070061] [<ffffffff80225591>] read_apic_id+0x41/0x7c
> [ 0.070067] [<ffffffff80729db6>] verify_local_APIC+0xe6/0x177
> [ 0.070072] [<ffffffff80728a81>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x247/0x383
> [ 0.070078] [<ffffffff8071d712>] kernel_init+0x69/0x29c
> [ 0.070084] [<ffffffff8057908a>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x43/0x62
> [ 0.070090] [<ffffffff80237516>] ? finish_task_switch+0x3e/0xb4
> [ 0.070096] [<ffffffff8020d5f8>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
> [ 0.070102] [<ffffffff803b8237>] ? acpi_ds_init_one_object+0x0/0xb1
> [ 0.070108] [<ffffffff8071d6a9>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x29c
> [ 0.070113] [<ffffffff8020d5ee>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x12
> [ 0.070117]
> [ 0.070120] ---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a725 ]---
> [ 0.080292] CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping 06
> [ 0.080300] Using local APIC timer interrupts.

So that may well be a destined-for-2.6.25 problem.